Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account?

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

I spent some time prime factoring year numbers ranging 1900 to the present year 2020. A column with year numbers was sided by columns headed 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 and 19.

I could say with full confidence : "1927 is 41 * 47, 2017 is a prime number, 1989 is not a prime number, but 3 to the second or 9 times 13 times 17."

Now, suppose I had to confront a doubter. He would check 41 * 47 and agree.

Then he would go for 2017.

"Have you really taken all the factors into account? Are you sure 2017 is a prime?"

The sieve for prime numbers 2 to 19 left no check, so it is a prime candidate. Checks for 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43 and 47 also gave numbers (five to two year numbers on each prime number) clearly not involving 2017. Going to 53 or beyond is superfluous. Why? 53 * 53 = 2809. Way beyond 2017. Even 47 * 47 is so, 2209. This means, none of these can be the smallest prime factor in any year number up to and including 2017 (or any other number, for that matter). I got 3 year numbers involving prime factor 53 and each also had smaller, not (just?) bigger factors.

"Well, maybe 2017 might be a prime number then, though I wouldn't be too dogmatic on that one!"

Thanks for the confidence, but I actually gave sufficient mathematic proof that 2017 must be a prime number. That one can indeed be very dogmatic on that one.

"But how about 1989? Sure it isn't a prime number too? I mean it's a very big number, and it ain't even, and that's how most prime numbers look! Have you taken all the factors into account?"

Well, that's a good question before considering a large number as a prime, at least for all the factors up to the one prime number closest below (or above if you like) the square root, or the one prime factor whose square is closest above the number.

It's not a very intelligent question when one is presenting factors. You check. Do 3 * 3 * 13 * 17 really produce 1989?

3 * 3 = 9
9 * 13 = 117 (130 - 13, like 9 is 10 - 1).
117 * 17 = 1170 + 770 ( = 1870 + 70 = 1940) + 49 = 1989.

Yes, it does.

"Well, sure no other factors also can so add up?"

It's multiply, not add up, and when you multiply prime factors, no other set of prime factors can multiply into the same number as the one it has as prime factors.

"Have you checked with prime factors 7?"

Why, yes, I actually got a grid where 1989 was not checked in the 7 column.

And, as said, 3 * 3 * 13 * 17 certainly does the job.

"Ah, but what about 19? Or 89? Did you forget these obvious ones?"

They are obviously not factors of 1989. When one part of the digits has or is any factor, for the number as a whole to be that factor, the other part also has to have or be that factor.

19 is certainly a factor in 1900 ...

"Ah, see?"

... which means that any number which has 19 as a factor in the last two digits has 19 as a factor in itself.

"Like?"

1919, 1938, 1957, 1976, 1995, 2014 ...

"Sure you can't get 1989 on this list?"

Very sure indeed, they are all 19 apart, and there is just one 19, not two of them, from 1976 to 1995.

"Well, what about squeasing in 1989 before 1976 or after 1995?"

Well, it's after 1976, and before 1995.

"Well, what about between them, then?"

Let's say, I give the man a very angry glare.

"Oh, yes, you had already looked between them ... I guess 19 isn't a prime factor then, but are you sure about 89?"

Yes, I say very slowly, I had already looked between, there was no room for them.

Now, 89 is not a factor of 19 ...

"OK"

... and 19 is not a factor of 89 either.

"I'd not be quite sure of that ..."

Look, if 1989 has no room between 1976 and 1995, 89 has no room between 76 and 95 either.

Let's say he gives me a very sceptical look and says "ah, you're a very dogmatic person!"

I patiently go on and say : 890 is 10 times 89, right?

"No problem ..."

So 890 plus 890 is also of the prime factor 89, more precisely 20 times, and it is 1780.

"Let me check ... yeah, 1780 makes sense!"

1780 + 89, you get 1869.

"Guess you are right, but where are you coming to?"

And 1869 + 89 are 1958. You add 80 to 1869 and you get 1949, you add 9 to that and get 1958. And 1989 is clearly too close to 1958 to also have 89 as a factor ...

"But are you sure it isn't a prime, have you really taken all the factors into account?"

As I just mentioned ... wait, forget it. Maths aren't all that important.

I get this kind of feeling on other subjects, since some of them are less well taught than mathematics.

There is a difference between prime factoring and explaining phenomena. 1989 can't have any other prime factors than the one set 3 * 3 * 13 * 17. No other set can do the job. But in explaining phenomena, the same set of phenomena can in fact be explained in different ways.

For instance, let's agree that artefacts with carbon from trees or linen from the beginning of the War of Independence do have 97 percent modern Carbon, and artefacts from the time when St. Joan was being tried have 93.112 pmC (as we will abbreviate "percent modern Carbon" henceforth). We can agree that this means both times there was 100 pmC in the atmosphere, and after both artefacts were made, an appropriate number of years, like 250 or 590, passed, and left the amounts by the halflife 5730 years.

Some artefacts or other display amounts as low as 25 pmC. You can go two ways on that. Unlike War of Independence and Process of St. Joan, Göbekli Tepe was not part of a civilisation still around in its then shape or overseeable changes*, so one thing that will do the job is, the atmosphere had 100 pmC, and two half lives have passed. Since two half lives add up to more than Biblical chronology, this is not my option. My guess, whether intelligent or not, is, Göbekli Tepe was Babel of Genesis 11, it was around from death of Noah 350 after Flood to birth of Peleg 401 after the Flood, and the carbon content was lower. Less than one halflife ago, the atmosphere had less than 50 pmC. Or, the Babel event was indeed (as CMI prefer) prior to human things dated more normally to 20 000 BP, even 40 000 BP, but it shows a lots higher initial carbon 14 content due to ending in an atomic explosion, and therefore Göbekli Tepe dates younger than it should compared to the general rise of carbon content in the atmosphere.

Unlike prime factoring, the fact that one scenario can do the job doesn't mean no other one can.

Or when I discuss geocentrism as both preferrable for Biblical chronology (doing away with distant starlight problem) and possible in a Theistic view, in which God exists and in which He has created angels too.

Or the truth of the Gospel or of the Catholic Church being the one Church of Christ.

I come across people who are as illequipped for the debate as the fictitious math sceptic in my little dialogue.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Lawrence of Rome
10.VIII.2020

Romae, via Tiburtina, natalis beati Laurentii Archidiaconi, qui, in persecutione Valeriani, post plurima tormenta carceris, verberum diversorum, fustium, ac plumbatarum et laminarum ardentium, ad ultimum, in craticula ferrea assatus, martyrium complevit; ejusque corpus a beato Hippolyto et Justino Presbytero sepultum fuit in coemeterio Cyriacae, in agro Verano.

* And as the civilisation is not around in recognisable form and having used AD Gregorian dates back then, we do not have a very clear immediate record of how old it is from known history.