freeztar said:
Can you please translate what he is saying for those of us that don't speak Fuller?
It seems to me that he's saying that all primes can be reduced to one of nine numbers. But, what the heck is an indig?
I found this, but it still doesn't make sense.
1200.00 NUMEROLOGY
what bucky is calling an "indig" is a remainder/residue of an integer after dividing by 9. for a point of reference, i have called "indigs" "katabatak transforms/residues" in my katabataks threads. clearly you can derive such a remainder after dividing by 9 from every integer, prime or composite. we have 2 main ways to get that remainder; #1) do the long division and find the remainder 2) sum the digits repeatedly until arriving at a single digit. (this is the method of numerology & in strict mathematic terms called
digital roots)
so for example, take the integer 1928. doing the long divsion you have 1928/9= 214R2, so the "indig" is 2. now for the same integer to find the digital root you add the digits like so: 1+9+2+8=20 and 2+0=2 and again the "indig" is 2.
so when dividing by 9 for a remainder you obviously can have 9 different results for the remainder . bucky tries to explain, but does it poorly, that having an indig of 9 is the same as having an indig of 0(zero). thinking to long division by 9 for example, if you divide 36 by nine using long divsion you typically write the answer as 4 remainder 0, but it is also technically correct to write it as 3 remainder 9.
bucky's biggest problem here is confusing the map for the territory. in short, the numerals aren't the numbers. rewrite an integer in a base besides 10 and the resulting indig is different. for example, twenty in base ten is 20 (2 in the tens column and zero in the one's column) and the indig is 2, but twenty in base 9 is written 22 (2 in the nines column and 2 in the one's column) and the indig is then 2+2=4. in the first case the remainder is after dividing by 9, in the second case the remainder is after divsion by 8.
bucky is taking his indigs and saying they correlate to his geometry, but that corrrelation only appears if you use base 10 to write the numerals under consideration.
Help
Join now
Sign in
while i have only a casual knowledge of physics, i have a butt-load of specific knowledge & experience working with residues and this is nothing short of delusional thinking expressed as misinformed babbling of the worst interoperational effects kind. 
Promote to Article
Posted 27 August 2011 - 02:06 PM
i'm afraid i don't know anything about bucky rays, but if they are like bucky balls then bucky had nothing to do with them, i.e. he did not write about them. i recycled my hard-copies of synergetics but the online version is linked in many of these posts for anyone's perusal.
