Jim M☺riarty | The Man With The Key (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ihaveanappforthat) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
sortinghat_rp2012-12-09 10:30 am
ihaveanappforthat) wrote in sortinghat_rp2012-12-09 10:30 am
Posts About How Hard Basic Math
[Someone has been spending a lot of his free time on one of the Slytherin common room sofas, keeping to himself and a couple of texts on Arithmancy. If it wasn't obvious by the dark circles under his eyes, he had not been sleeping enough and probably spending far too much time writing papers, testing theories and reading.]
I've taken notice to the startling reality that hardly anyone understands anything about Arithmancy other than it being a class, and those that do have a plethora of misconceptions about the study.
Bridget Wenlock first discovered the magical properties of seven - many might know how seven is generally a rather lucky number. Stir a potion seven times do a little jig and you've got one lucky batch of whatever you're making - that was me being facetious, I hardly advise dancing whilst making potions. That doesn't alter the fact that the number seven is used in potion making and even in other fields of magic aside from Arithmancy and Potions.
That being said, I am going to dispel a few of those misconceptions about Arithmancy:
First and foremost -- Divination and Arithmancy are not the same.
Divination is the field of magic that uses methods of divining the future or gathering insights into future events via the use of various rituals and tools.
Arithmancy is the field of magic that utilizes the magical properties of numbers, including predicting the future with numbers and numerology.
So someone may enjoy Divination and dislike Arithmancy, or the total opposite (I am in this statistic). As I state they are different -- I could spend paragraphs comparing apples and oranges but really no one wants that. ☺
We're now onto the next fallacy; lucky numbers, sounds easy enough. How wrong and boring. In Arithmancy the numbers used are single digit numbers: one to nine. Everything must always be simplified to single digits so it's not just lucky numbers that you see or use in your life over the years.
If your lucky number is, say fourteen. In Arithmancy your lucky number would be five;
14
1+4 = 5
No two digit numbers, you must always add.
14 = ☹
1+4 = 5
Now, there isn't just one chart you can use to assign number to letters; there are two. Yes, I said two.
There is the Agrippan Method (Also known as the Pythagorian Method) which is believed to be discovered by Cornelius Agrippa, a german wizard and philosopher. There are some texts on him in the library, they're quite interesting if you ever are bored! He divided the Latin alphabet and gave each number a value from one to nine.
The second method is Chaldean Method. Instead of being based off of Latin and the other Romance Languages, it is based off Arabic languages. It also does not assign the value nine to any letter of the alphabet. It is, however, the same in that it you gather the sum of values and then that sum is reduced for a final number.
This is where things are going to get a bit biased, please forgive me in advance.
Many will say that the future is unchangeable, that it is already predetermined. The future is ever changing, quite a few would disagree with me, say that it is a preset destination that everyone will come to - but those people think inside the box. The future is what you make of it. As Rene Descartes said -- Mind over matter - cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. That is how I look at the future, it exists however we make it to.
I see Arithmancy as a fluid field of magic, so many factors and possibilities affecting it.
Onto my theory for the matter:
As I mentioned earlier, it is a mix of science and magic.
A well known law in physics is Newton's Third Law, wherein he states that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This of course was related to gravity but in all numbers there seems to be truth to this. If seven is an extremely magical and lucky number there must be an opposite. Theoretically this must be true if we look at Newton's laws and apply them to mathematics.
I'm not generally a pessimist, but I cannot be the only one raising an eyebrow at all the positivity in Arithmancy.
I've taken notice to the startling reality that hardly anyone understands anything about Arithmancy other than it being a class, and those that do have a plethora of misconceptions about the study.
Bridget Wenlock first discovered the magical properties of seven - many might know how seven is generally a rather lucky number. Stir a potion seven times do a little jig and you've got one lucky batch of whatever you're making - that was me being facetious, I hardly advise dancing whilst making potions. That doesn't alter the fact that the number seven is used in potion making and even in other fields of magic aside from Arithmancy and Potions.
That being said, I am going to dispel a few of those misconceptions about Arithmancy:
First and foremost -- Divination and Arithmancy are not the same.
Divination is the field of magic that uses methods of divining the future or gathering insights into future events via the use of various rituals and tools.
Arithmancy is the field of magic that utilizes the magical properties of numbers, including predicting the future with numbers and numerology.
So someone may enjoy Divination and dislike Arithmancy, or the total opposite (I am in this statistic). As I state they are different -- I could spend paragraphs comparing apples and oranges but really no one wants that. ☺
We're now onto the next fallacy; lucky numbers, sounds easy enough. How wrong and boring. In Arithmancy the numbers used are single digit numbers: one to nine. Everything must always be simplified to single digits so it's not just lucky numbers that you see or use in your life over the years.
If your lucky number is, say fourteen. In Arithmancy your lucky number would be five;
14
1+4 = 5
No two digit numbers, you must always add.
14 = ☹
1+4 = 5
Now, there isn't just one chart you can use to assign number to letters; there are two. Yes, I said two.
There is the Agrippan Method (Also known as the Pythagorian Method) which is believed to be discovered by Cornelius Agrippa, a german wizard and philosopher. There are some texts on him in the library, they're quite interesting if you ever are bored! He divided the Latin alphabet and gave each number a value from one to nine.
The second method is Chaldean Method. Instead of being based off of Latin and the other Romance Languages, it is based off Arabic languages. It also does not assign the value nine to any letter of the alphabet. It is, however, the same in that it you gather the sum of values and then that sum is reduced for a final number.
This is where things are going to get a bit biased, please forgive me in advance.
Many will say that the future is unchangeable, that it is already predetermined. The future is ever changing, quite a few would disagree with me, say that it is a preset destination that everyone will come to - but those people think inside the box. The future is what you make of it. As Rene Descartes said -- Mind over matter - cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. That is how I look at the future, it exists however we make it to.
I see Arithmancy as a fluid field of magic, so many factors and possibilities affecting it.
Onto my theory for the matter:
As I mentioned earlier, it is a mix of science and magic.
A well known law in physics is Newton's Third Law, wherein he states that "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This of course was related to gravity but in all numbers there seems to be truth to this. If seven is an extremely magical and lucky number there must be an opposite. Theoretically this must be true if we look at Newton's laws and apply them to mathematics.
I'm not generally a pessimist, but I cannot be the only one raising an eyebrow at all the positivity in Arithmancy.
no subject
no subject
[Someone is grumpy!]
tmw i realise they're both 6th yr slytherins
[He is probably the worst person to be talking to.]
no subject
[He is also possessive of Arthur, so there's already bad blood.]
no subject
[Uh oh. And Arthur's been his best friend since they were like seven.]
no subject
[FIGHT HIM. And he gives so little fucks it's not even funny.]
no subject
[MAYBE LATER. Trying to cause general annoyance is enough for him right now.]
no subject
Tell me, when it comes to morality do you agree with him? Do you hold a Deontological view? Or would you say you agree with one of the others? I'm sure you know the other philosophies on morality, seeing as you know basic knowledge on everything.
I, myself, like looking through the glasses of the Harm Principle.
[So he picks Philosophy, Moriarty's most versed subject... Followed by Mathematics.... Great job.]
no subject
I do agree with him. He goes with the concept of things being good based on the intention behind the action. Like helping an old lady across the street, for example. Assisting her might appear to be good; let's face it, it's cold outside and old people can't move fast in the cold, and some of those drivers waiting for the light to turn might be merciless or not paying attention. There could be black ice on the road, ect. If someone helps her across because it's the right thing to do, then it's morally good. On the other extreme, if they help her with the hopes of getting a benefit out of it, it's obviously not morally sound. Kant also allows leeway with his philosophies; it's more like a guideline so individuals can decide what is or isn't moral instead of leaving it to be determined by the status quo.
Of course there's different philosophies that fall under deontology, but I don't care for them. Like Divine Command Theory? Not big on that, because what that comes down to is an argument on whether or not God exists. That shouldn't be an issue in morality; it should be dependent upon logic and reason.
In theory, the Harm Principle is ideal, but it's not something that could actually work in society as a whole. Free thinking and so on is good, but when it comes to action there should be more order.
[Oops, his German is showing.]
no subject
Not a man of God?
You don't believe in autonomy? Typically the close minded don't. I'm not surprised.
[SASSY GAY JIM.]
no subject
[OMG RUDE.]
I'm not close minded; there is simply more benefit in looking out for the community rather than just for one's self.
no subject
Of course not.
Without life there is no such community, wouldn't you say? Therefore one must look out for themselves before looking out for others.
no subject
In order to take care of yourself and to make sure you don't stray, you need someone to keep you in line. Not necessarily to boss you around, but someone to count on and who counts on you. That's the best motivator.
no subject
"Keeping you in line" would differ between many. In an idealistic world, that would be perfect, but in one like this, it would only cause problems and people would feel their autonomy being taken from them. People don't like to be controlled, they like to think they're making the shots. That's going to be your problem.
Forcing someone's hand open is only harmful, especially when you can simply ask them to.
no subject