@mr1931S said: 484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
You have underestimated by a lot the frequency of 1909-S V.D.B. in the population of ALL wheat cents excluding proofs.
(26x10ꝰ)/(484x10³) = 53,719. In other words, if ALL wheat cents ever made (not counting proofs) were available to search through in 1959-1960, one could expect to find one 1909-S V.D.B. in each 53,719 wheat cents searched. 53,719 pennies would be the number of pennies in 10+ (10.743) bags of 5000 coins.
The pharmacist did good. His 1909-S V.D.B. likely found it's way into the bank bag he searched after spending five decades in someone's piggy bank. Lots of luck there with that find.
One million to ten million to one against the collector finding a 1909-S V.D.B. penny in circulation in 1962 sounds about right considering that most of the pieces that made it into circulation had already been found by penny board enthusiasts by 1935-1937.
Many of us here would also love to read a through breakdown of the 1931-S cent, only if you feel qualified to do so.
I'm thinking further detailed investigation(s) on @mr1931S might now lead to various conclusions that didn't originally support his synopsis.
(For example, his "squirrel theory" might have needed further exploration on his part.)
@RedRocket said:
I'm thinking further detailed investigation(s) on @mr1931S might now lead to various conclusions that didn't originally support his synopsis.
(For example, his "squirrel theory" might have needed further exploration on his part.)
@HalfDime said:
If someone finds a needle in a haystack, it doesn't mean others can find a needle in it.
True. But if one never looks for the needle it is a mathematical certainty that one will not find it.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: 484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
You have underestimated by a lot the frequency of 1909-S V.D.B. in the population of ALL wheat cents excluding proofs.
(26x10ꝰ)/(484x10³) = 53,719. In other words, if ALL wheat cents ever made (not counting proofs) were available to search through in 1959-1960, one could expect to find one 1909-S V.D.B. in each 53,719 wheat cents searched. 53,719 pennies would be the number of pennies in 10+ (10.743) bags of 5000 coins.
The pharmacist did good. His 1909-S V.D.B. likely found it's way into the bank bag he searched after spending five decades in someone's piggy bank. Lots of luck there with that find.
One million to ten million to one against the collector finding a 1909-S V.D.B. penny in circulation in 1962 sounds about right considering that most of the pieces that made it into circulation had already been found by penny board enthusiasts by 1935-1937.
Many of us here would also love to read a through breakdown of the 1931-S cent, only if you feel qualified to do so.
@mr1931S said:
The '31-S in one of my albums has a light fingerprint on the obverse. The fingerprint does give the piece a little character. I imagine a kid's grubby fingers tightly clutching what is now my '31-S at the candy store long ago. I go back and forth between leave it be or remove.
Anyone here know what I can do to in an attempt to remove the fingerprint on my '31-S? It's in VF condition.
@mr1931S said: 484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
You have underestimated by a lot the frequency of 1909-S V.D.B. in the population of ALL wheat cents excluding proofs.
(26x10ꝰ)/(484x10³) = 53,719. In other words, if ALL wheat cents ever made (not counting proofs) were available to search through in 1959-1960, one could expect to find one 1909-S V.D.B. in each 53,719 wheat cents searched. 53,719 pennies would be the number of pennies in 10+ (10.743) bags of 5000 coins.
The pharmacist did good. His 1909-S V.D.B. likely found it's way into the bank bag he searched after spending five decades in someone's piggy bank. Lots of luck there with that find.
One million to ten million to one against the collector finding a 1909-S V.D.B. penny in circulation in 1962 sounds about right considering that most of the pieces that made it into circulation had already been found by penny board enthusiasts by 1935-1937.
Yes, i underestimated the VDB, but the odds of finding the bronze are much much smaller. And so, you still have a one in a billion chance of finding a bronze if you weigh every cent. Using your numbers, the odds are actually worse relative to a VDB. You are ignoring the whole point.
Well, my numbers are correct. I don't quite get how you ended up being off by a factor of almost four.
I would pull the '82 and '83 dated pennies out of rolls from the bank boxes. I have a digital scale that can weigh coins quickly to 1/10 gram accuracy. Since I wanted to make sure I got the '82 bronze pennies along with the earlier ones, I decided why not check the '83s for DDR in the case of '83 Philly issue and also weigh them which is what I was doing with the '82s anyway. All weighing was done after all rolls in the box had been checked, pulling out pennies of interest, setting them aside. I didn't even have to reroll the pennies to be taken back to the bank. The bank would count them for me using their counter. As i said earlier, going through the bank box pennies trying to find "good ones" was something I did during the Covid pandemic. 1000+ rolls searched. 15,000 or so "good" (bronze) pennies were pulled and saved.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: 484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
You have underestimated by a lot the frequency of 1909-S V.D.B. in the population of ALL wheat cents excluding proofs.
(26x10ꝰ)/(484x10³) = 53,719. In other words, if ALL wheat cents ever made (not counting proofs) were available to search through in 1959-1960, one could expect to find one 1909-S V.D.B. in each 53,719 wheat cents searched. 53,719 pennies would be the number of pennies in 10+ (10.743) bags of 5000 coins.
The pharmacist did good. His 1909-S V.D.B. likely found it's way into the bank bag he searched after spending five decades in someone's piggy bank. Lots of luck there with that find.
One million to ten million to one against the collector finding a 1909-S V.D.B. penny in circulation in 1962 sounds about right considering that most of the pieces that made it into circulation had already been found by penny board enthusiasts by 1935-1937.
Yes, i underestimated the VDB, but the odds of finding the bronze are much much smaller. And so, you still have a one in a billion chance of finding a bronze if you weigh every cent. Using your numbers, the odds are actually worse relative to a VDB. You are ignoring the whole point.
Well, my numbers are correct. I don't quite get how you ended up being off by a factor of almost four.
I would pull the '82 and '83 dated pennies out of rolls from the bank boxes. I have a digital scale that can weigh coins quickly to 1/10 gram accuracy. Since I wanted to make sure I got the '82 bronze pennies along with the earlier ones, I decided why not check the '83s for DDR in the case of '83 Philly issue and also weigh them which is what I was doing with the '82s anyway. All weighing was done after all rolls in the box had been checked, pulling out pennies of interest, setting them aside. I didn't even have to reroll the pennies to be taken back to the bank. The bank would count them for me using their counter. As i said earlier, going through the bank box pennies trying to find "good ones" was something I did during the Covid pandemic. 1000+ rolls searched. 15,000 or so "good" (bronze) pennies were pulled and saved.
Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Again, 2 seconds per coin for 1 billion coins is 63 years working 24/7. All to find a coin that might be worth $50,000. You would be better off flipping burgers at McDonald's
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@mr1931S said: 484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
You have underestimated by a lot the frequency of 1909-S V.D.B. in the population of ALL wheat cents excluding proofs.
(26x10ꝰ)/(484x10³) = 53,719. In other words, if ALL wheat cents ever made (not counting proofs) were available to search through in 1959-1960, one could expect to find one 1909-S V.D.B. in each 53,719 wheat cents searched. 53,719 pennies would be the number of pennies in 10+ (10.743) bags of 5000 coins.
The pharmacist did good. His 1909-S V.D.B. likely found it's way into the bank bag he searched after spending five decades in someone's piggy bank. Lots of luck there with that find.
One million to ten million to one against the collector finding a 1909-S V.D.B. penny in circulation in 1962 sounds about right considering that most of the pieces that made it into circulation had already been found by penny board enthusiasts by 1935-1937.
Many of us here would also love to read a through breakdown of the 1931-S cent, only if you feel qualified to do so.
Seminole instead of seminal was a nice touch.
Red states he now has gotta go and look up a couple of words.
And his only dictionary is down in the basement behind his weed Wacker.
Not pleased,
Red R.
@mr1931S said: 484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
You have underestimated by a lot the frequency of 1909-S V.D.B. in the population of ALL wheat cents excluding proofs.
(26x10ꝰ)/(484x10³) = 53,719. In other words, if ALL wheat cents ever made (not counting proofs) were available to search through in 1959-1960, one could expect to find one 1909-S V.D.B. in each 53,719 wheat cents searched. 53,719 pennies would be the number of pennies in 10+ (10.743) bags of 5000 coins.
The pharmacist did good. His 1909-S V.D.B. likely found it's way into the bank bag he searched after spending five decades in someone's piggy bank. Lots of luck there with that find.
One million to ten million to one against the collector finding a 1909-S V.D.B. penny in circulation in 1962 sounds about right considering that most of the pieces that made it into circulation had already been found by penny board enthusiasts by 1935-1937.
Many of us here would also love to read a through breakdown of the 1931-S cent, only if you feel qualified to do so.
Seminole instead of seminal was a nice touch.
Red states he now has gotta go and look up a couple of words.
And his only dictionary is down in the basement behind his weed Wacker.
Not pleased,
Red R.
Red's dictionary and associated Mint documents for everyone on the other thread mad at Joe. Soon, only Red and White will take Joe's calls.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any readers. @IkesT has more readers of your fictional posts.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any readers. @IkesT has more readers of your fictional posts.
Alas, another diversion.
A more usual way of talking about goal posts would be to say, "you are moving the goal posts." But "move the goal posts" doesn't really fit here. "Change the goal posts" is better, in my opinion.
Red Herring (a definition):
The Red Herring fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a topic is introduced in an argument that does not directly relate to the issue being discussed. It is a form of misdirection that draws attention away from the original issue. In an argument, the red herring fallacy is used to divert the discussion away from the topic at hand and onto a different, unrelated topic. This could be done as a way to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes or weaknesses, or to discredit the opponent’s argument. It is considered a logical fallacy because it does not address the issue and instead focuses on something else.
Here's the math at work here:
change the goal posts=introduce a red herring
btw, awhile back in one of these threads (could be this one) you posted a link to a physics forum. I once read and posted in a physics forum long ago but left out of disgust because some yahoos there refused to acknowledge Einstein as the author of the Theory of Relativity. Could you post that link here so I can check it out? I'm always looking for ways to entertain myself. I like physics, math and such and was thinking that I could give physics forum another try.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any readers. @IkesT has more readers of your fictional posts.
Alas, another diversion.
A more usual way of talking about goal posts would be to say, "you are moving the goal posts." But "move the goal posts" doesn't really fit here. "Change the goal posts" is better, in my opinion.
Red Herring (a definition):
The Red Herring fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a topic is introduced in an argument that does not directly relate to the issue being discussed. It is a form of misdirection that draws attention away from the original issue. In an argument, the red herring fallacy is used to divert the discussion away from the topic at hand and onto a different, unrelated topic. This could be done as a way to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes or weaknesses, or to discredit the opponent’s argument. It is considered a logical fallacy because it does not address the issue and instead focuses on something else.
Here's the math at work here:
change the goal posts=introduce a red herring
btw, awhile back in one of these threads (could be this one) you posted a link to a physics forum. I once read and posted in a physics forum long ago but left out of disgust because some yahoos there refused to acknowledge Einstein as the author of the Theory of Relativity. Could you post that link here so I can check it out? I'm always looking for ways to entertain myself. I like physics, math and such and was thinking that I could give physics forum another try.
Not a diversion. Not a red herring. Not a moving goal post. Just moving on.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
no link repost? I'm hungry for talk about physics, math and such.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
If no repost of physics forum link forthcoming that's okay. I get that you are annoyed by me. Get me off this forum for a spell while I duke it out with physics and math folks both imaginary and real would be useful, no?
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said:
no link repost? I'm hungry for talk about physics, math and such.
Not movies or physics or whatever else your overactive imagination can conjure.
U S C O I N S
@mr1931S said:
If no repost of physics forum link forthcoming that's okay. I get that you are annoyed by me. Get me off this forum for a spell while I duke it out with physics and math folks both imaginary and real would be useful, no?
Thanks. I see they've got their ancient threads over there too.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any readers. @IkesT has more readers of your fictional posts.
Alas, another diversion.
A more usual way of talking about goal posts would be to say, "you are moving the goal posts." But "move the goal posts" doesn't really fit here. "Change the goal posts" is better, in my opinion.
Red Herring (a definition):
The Red Herring fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a topic is introduced in an argument that does not directly relate to the issue being discussed. It is a form of misdirection that draws attention away from the original issue. In an argument, the red herring fallacy is used to divert the discussion away from the topic at hand and onto a different, unrelated topic. This could be done as a way to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes or weaknesses, or to discredit the opponent’s argument. It is considered a logical fallacy because it does not address the issue and instead focuses on something else.
Here's the math at work here:
change the goal posts=introduce a red herring
btw, awhile back in one of these threads (could be this one) you posted a link to a physics forum. I once read and posted in a physics forum long ago but left out of disgust because some yahoos there refused to acknowledge Einstein as the author of the Theory of Relativity. Could you post that link here so I can check it out? I'm always looking for ways to entertain myself. I like physics, math and such and was thinking that I could give physics forum another try.
@mr1931S said:
no link repost? I'm hungry for talk about physics, math and such.
Not movies or physics or whatever else your overactive imagination can conjure.
U S C O I N S
@mr1931S said:
If no repost of physics forum link forthcoming that's okay. I get that you are annoyed by me. Get me off this forum for a spell while I duke it out with physics and math folks both imaginary and real would be useful, no?
You don't need our help. Google exists. Go.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any readers. @IkesT has more readers of your fictional posts.
Alas, another diversion.
A more usual way of talking about goal posts would be to say, "you are moving the goal posts." But "move the goal posts" doesn't really fit here. "Change the goal posts" is better, in my opinion.
Red Herring (a definition):
The Red Herring fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a topic is introduced in an argument that does not directly relate to the issue being discussed. It is a form of misdirection that draws attention away from the original issue. In an argument, the red herring fallacy is used to divert the discussion away from the topic at hand and onto a different, unrelated topic. This could be done as a way to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes or weaknesses, or to discredit the opponent’s argument. It is considered a logical fallacy because it does not address the issue and instead focuses on something else.
Here's the math at work here:
change the goal posts=introduce a red herring
btw, awhile back in one of these threads (could be this one) you posted a link to a physics forum. I once read and posted in a physics forum long ago but left out of disgust because some yahoos there refused to acknowledge Einstein as the author of the Theory of Relativity. Could you post that link here so I can check it out? I'm always looking for ways to entertain myself. I like physics, math and such and was thinking that I could give physics forum another try.
TLDR. Waiting for Ike’s summary.
Isn't waiting for Ike's alterations what you really mean?
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
This discussion is catching my eye. What exactly is Dirac's Delta Function? I've been trying to break the code used by the lottery to generate their "random" numbers and saw some possibility of using Dirac Delta to that end. Maybe I need to learn more about how computers work to be successful but for the time being i will immerse myself in all things Dirac Delta.
Again, thanks jmlanzaf for the link. You providing that link means a lot to me. I could have found a physics talk site on my own but I believe in karma. I have the sense that the link you reposted was the right one for me.
So long pilgrims. At least, so long for this thread.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@mr1931S said: Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
@mr1931S said:
Back in the early '60's, when I was a beginning penny collector, a special coin to look for in rolls from the bank was the 1909-S V.D.B. What were my chances of actually finding one?
A local pharmacist found a 1909-S V.D.B. a few years earlier (around 1959-1960) in a bank bag of 5000 cents. I know this to be true because he showed his prize find to me and my best friend who was a penny collector too. Lovely lustrous piece, close to uncirculated.
Information to get you all started in your computations: The wheat penny had a total mintage of some 26 billion pieces. The 1909-S V.D.B. had an original mintage of 484 thousand pieces.
Are you all ready to start computing?
GO!
484,000 out of 26 billion is 1 in 200,000 (rounding). That is 5000x more common than a bronze 1983. You claim to understand Einstein's integrals, is THAT computing at all? In other words, you would find 5000 SVDB's for every 1 1983 bronze.
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any readers. @IkesT has more readers of your fictional posts.
Alas, another diversion.
A more usual way of talking about goal posts would be to say, "you are moving the goal posts." But "move the goal posts" doesn't really fit here. "Change the goal posts" is better, in my opinion.
Red Herring (a definition):
The Red Herring fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a topic is introduced in an argument that does not directly relate to the issue being discussed. It is a form of misdirection that draws attention away from the original issue. In an argument, the red herring fallacy is used to divert the discussion away from the topic at hand and onto a different, unrelated topic. This could be done as a way to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes or weaknesses, or to discredit the opponent’s argument. It is considered a logical fallacy because it does not address the issue and instead focuses on something else.
Here's the math at work here:
change the goal posts=introduce a red herring
btw, awhile back in one of these threads (could be this one) you posted a link to a physics forum. I once read and posted in a physics forum long ago but left out of disgust because some yahoos there refused to acknowledge Einstein as the author of the Theory of Relativity. Could you post that link here so I can check it out? I'm always looking for ways to entertain myself. I like physics, math and such and was thinking that I could give physics forum another try.
Comments
I'm thinking further detailed investigation(s) on @mr1931S might now lead to various conclusions that didn't originally support his synopsis.
(For example, his "squirrel theory" might have needed further exploration on his part.)
True. But if one never looks for the needle it is a mathematical certainty that one will not find it.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
Seminole instead of seminal was a nice touch.
Well, my numbers are correct. I don't quite get how you ended up being off by a factor of almost four.
I would pull the '82 and '83 dated pennies out of rolls from the bank boxes. I have a digital scale that can weigh coins quickly to 1/10 gram accuracy. Since I wanted to make sure I got the '82 bronze pennies along with the earlier ones, I decided why not check the '83s for DDR in the case of '83 Philly issue and also weigh them which is what I was doing with the '82s anyway. All weighing was done after all rolls in the box had been checked, pulling out pennies of interest, setting them aside. I didn't even have to reroll the pennies to be taken back to the bank. The bank would count them for me using their counter. As i said earlier, going through the bank box pennies trying to find "good ones" was something I did during the Covid pandemic. 1000+ rolls searched. 15,000 or so "good" (bronze) pennies were pulled and saved.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Again, 2 seconds per coin for 1 billion coins is 63 years working 24/7. All to find a coin that might be worth $50,000. You would be better off flipping burgers at McDonald's
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Red states he now has gotta go and look up a couple of words.
And his only dictionary is down in the basement behind his weed Wacker.
Not pleased,
Red R.
That’s a few semantic fields you’ve run through.
Red's dictionary and associated Mint documents for everyone on the other thread mad at Joe. Soon, only Red and White will take Joe's calls.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Neither do I. I just rounded too much because that wasn't the number that mattered. And the factor of 4 works AGAINST your argument.
Rounding 53,719 to 200,000? Okaaaaay.> @jmlanzaf said:
Another post for the Hall of Fame. I mean, its not like the problem was calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
Calculating the number of carbon atoms in a lump of coal is easy.
I made a mistake. I quickly, incorrectly, the out an estimate because that number wasn't the interesting one. I owned my mistake. Now, own yours. You're ignoring the main point: 1 in a billion takes 63 years. Why don't you comment on that? Because you can't own your mistake, as usual. You won't live long enough to make that search profitable.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Assuming the numbers are correct, it would only take 63 years if he had to check every coin.
Correct. Sure, you could luck out and get it on the first try. That's how statistics work. You can also win the lottery on your first ticket.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The main point? Reread the thread. I understood quite a while ago, years ago, that finding a 1983 bronze cent was extremely unlikely given the enormous mintage of pennies by both the Denver and the Philadelphia mints.
Readers, in one year alone, 1983, two mints produced over half the number of zinc pennies that three mints produced in wheat cents in 50 years, 1909-1958. Of course it would take an impossible amount of time for one person on a mission to check all those 1983 dates currently circulating for bronze 3.1 gram weight.
I'm puzzled about what my mistake is here, a mistake that has been alleged I am failing to own. Did i make a mistake by taking the time to weigh all the 1983 pennies I found in the 1000+ bank rolls of pennies I searched a few years ago? Changing the goal posts, as lanzaf has done in his own mind, is logical fallacy. I would assume most readers here understand that.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
The audacity.
Is @mr1931S gaslighting all of us?
Confused (although, not really),
Red R.
I'm pretty sure you don't have any readers. @IkesT has more readers of your fictional posts.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You quoted me out of context.
No, I quoted Red out of context.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
We will have to agree to disagree.
You and Red, or Red and Joe?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
If Red may take a quote from the world-renown famous rap group, De La Soul:
"Me Myself and I"
Rapping to the beat, so to speak,
Red R.
Alas, another diversion.
A more usual way of talking about goal posts would be to say, "you are moving the goal posts." But "move the goal posts" doesn't really fit here. "Change the goal posts" is better, in my opinion.
Red Herring (a definition):
The Red Herring fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a topic is introduced in an argument that does not directly relate to the issue being discussed. It is a form of misdirection that draws attention away from the original issue. In an argument, the red herring fallacy is used to divert the discussion away from the topic at hand and onto a different, unrelated topic. This could be done as a way to avoid admitting one’s own mistakes or weaknesses, or to discredit the opponent’s argument. It is considered a logical fallacy because it does not address the issue and instead focuses on something else.
Here's the math at work here:
change the goal posts=introduce a red herring
btw, awhile back in one of these threads (could be this one) you posted a link to a physics forum. I once read and posted in a physics forum long ago but left out of disgust because some yahoos there refused to acknowledge Einstein as the author of the Theory of Relativity. Could you post that link here so I can check it out? I'm always looking for ways to entertain myself. I like physics, math and such and was thinking that I could give physics forum another try.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
Not a diversion. Not a red herring. Not a moving goal post. Just moving on.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
no link repost? I'm hungry for talk about physics, math and such.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
If no repost of physics forum link forthcoming that's okay. I get that you are annoyed by me. Get me off this forum for a spell while I duke it out with physics and math folks both imaginary and real would be useful, no?
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/only-three-people-understand-general-relativity.935624/
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Not movies or physics or whatever else your overactive imagination can conjure.
U S C O I N S
You don't need our help. Google exists. Go.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Thanks. I see they've got their ancient threads over there too.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
TLDR. Waiting for Ike’s summary.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
Isn't waiting for Ike's alterations what you really mean?
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
This discussion is catching my eye. What exactly is Dirac's Delta Function? I've been trying to break the code used by the lottery to generate their "random" numbers and saw some possibility of using Dirac Delta to that end. Maybe I need to learn more about how computers work to be successful but for the time being i will immerse myself in all things Dirac Delta.
Again, thanks jmlanzaf for the link. You providing that link means a lot to me. I could have found a physics talk site on my own but I believe in karma. I have the sense that the link you reposted was the right one for me.
So long pilgrims. At least, so long for this thread.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
Pretty sure this forum is about numismatics, not physics. Off topic threads will be closed.
Abby Zechman
PCGS Program Manager, Numismatic Education and Development