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
Then the invitation is made. Ugh - disappointing, predictable - very boring.]
Offer revoked. I do not want to deal with you trying to pry information out of me whilst under the false pretense of learning about my fascinating number theories.
[Sure is more sulking.]
no subject
Come on, now.
[He smiles slightly.]
I know bloody well I'm not going to get any information out of you, not if you don't want to give it to me, and I'll thank you to have a bit more faith in me, old chap.
[He straightens a bit, but remains leaning on the back of the sofa.]
Half an hour, Jim. What harm can it do?
no subject
Assuming you'd try was giving you faith.
[The raven haired boy then arches his back slightly and pushes himself up the back of the couch - the action almost snakelike. Arms latch around the back of Arthur's neck to pull him down, dangerously close. He's getting mean Arthur and he's probably got his face too close for comfort. The smell of mint and tea lingering on his breath.]
There are plenty of poisons that can immobolize the body and then kill it in and under thirty minutes. Plenty of venoms, toxins -- a puncture wound to the stomach would kill anyone in under that time. A angled slice to the femoral artery can kill you in under five minutes. A slit throat would only take four.
[There's something darkly interested in his eyes, he wants a reaction.]
no subject
[The only sign that Arthur is feeling any discomfort is a slight tensing across his shoulders as he's pulled forwards, but that could just as easily have been to stop himself from pitching over the back of the couch. He keeps his eyes on Jim's while he talks, his expression carefully impassive.]
... How charming.
[His shoulders relax then, and he shifts to ruffle his fingers over Moriarty's hair.]
I'll be sure to store that away with the rest of the general knowledge that I might just use one day. Would you mind letting go of my neck? This is a little uncomfortable.
no subject
Hm, yes - alright. Fair enough.
[Then there's that dreadful silence as he stares ahead for a long moment.]
no subject
Well, I'm going out for a walk. You can join me, if you like.
no subject
Yes - yes - lead the way.
[Those dark eyes are back on him, tearing any information away he can get off him.]
no subject
Now then, my friend. You must tell me, why this sudden interest in educating the wider populace in Arithmancy?
no subject
It seemed like it could be interesting. I'm good with numbers and most people get confused by the class.
no subject
[He pushes his hands into his pockets.]
Did you know that the Chinese consider the number four unlucky?