Menu
.faith
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Matthew 7:7
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
1 John 4:1
KINDRED STATES
Father Son Spirit
Solid Liquid Gas
Body Mind Soul
Ice Water Vapor
Consider
At some point in every real discovery, things get more complicated. What started as a seemingly simple visual anomaly gives way to complexity, and the gravity of the spiritual implications should raise harder questions. This is that point. We’re moving past the historical pre-cursers now and into the details — no longer how it came together but what exactly was found and why it matters.
For 23 years, I’ve known this page would be necessary. That it would be the place where the difficult questions would have to be answered with clarity. Explanations are expected, and clear understanding would need to be supported by both solid evidence and spiritual perspective. From the start, I believed the discovery — the miracle — could stand on its own. It doesn’t need defending or decoration, only honest consideration. But I also knew it would be my responsibility to do my best to answer the big questions.
Some will never accept surface patterns as enough. They’ll want to see the framework, the reasoning, the hard questions addressed — and this is where that work begins.
As you saw on the last page, we are faced the reality that more than one version of the matrix exists. That forces us to think critically about why are there six, and what they do they mean. We’re not just tracking numbers anymore — we’re looking at meaning, interpretation, and consistency. What makes one approach better than another? Can more than one be valid? What do we do when logic itself offers options instead of a single answer?
I'm confident that what I offer here will answer the technical questions. I have scrutinized it for years, and it holds up. You have never been expected to come away from this presentation with absolute certainty - but this page should get you closer.
Question everything
As you saw on the last page, where math for the matrix is double-checked and verified to the letter, several questions should be asked. Specifically, if the matrix displayed on Page G was a single image, why are there five others? There are two primary reasons for the multiple versions, and the rest of this page is devoted to wandering deep into the weeds to find the answers and explanations.
For starters, first consider the concept of matter. Matter exists in three states: solid, liquid, and gas. Each element can be transformed into any of these three forms without altering its fundamental properties. Similarly, the matrix can take on different forms while retaining its core integrity. To further clarify, think of mathematical fractions: though identical fractions can appear quite different, their values remain equivalent. This principle applies to the matrix as well.
For example, although the Alpha Sum matrix (Q-3) appears quite different from the original matrix (Q-2), they are, in essence, equivalent expressions. This is because the numbers in each matrix ultimately share the same Digital Root (Q-1). In a way, the Digital Root and Digital Sum matrices can be thought of as simplified versions of the grander Alpha Sum matrix, much like reducing fractions to simpler forms.
As I will demonstrate later on this page, there are also two distinct methods for calculating these sums, thanks only to the "teens." Therefore, the three expressions, combined with the two methods of calculation, result in a total of six distinct matrices.
3 Expressions
Same truth
Digital Root
Digital Sum
Alpha Sum
Powers of three
First, let's explore the profound significance the number 3 holds in Christian theology and in the broader context of creation. Throughout Scripture, God has integrated this number into his His design for the world, revealing deep truths about His nature, His plan for redemption, and the structure of existence itself.
The use of the number 3 is not merely symbolic; it reflects the unity, balance, and completeness that underpins the entirety of creation. From the Triune nature of God to the design of humanity, the number 3 serves as a foundational principle through which God expresses His divine order and purpose.
The most central and significant use of the number 3 in Christian theology is the doctrine of the Trinity—the three-in-one nature of God. In the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God reveals Himself as three distinct persons, yet perfectly unified as one divine essence. Each person of the Trinity has a unique role, yet they are inseparable from one another. The Father is the source, the Creator, and the eternal origin. The Son, Jesus Christ, is the manifestation of God in the world—God made flesh—who reveals His nature through His life, death, and resurrection. The Holy Spirit is the active presence of God in the world, guiding, comforting, and empowering believers.
The existence of the Trinity illustrates that unity can exist in diversity, with three distinct persons existing in perfect relationship with each other. This divine unity serves as a model for the harmony that God desires for His creation, pointing to a deeper spiritual truth about how God operates in the world.
In addition to the Trinity, the number 3 appears throughout the creation narrative, where it is foundational to the structure of the universe. The world is designed in a three-part structure: heavens, earth, and seas. The heavens represent the spiritual and divine realm, where God dwells; the earth symbolizes the physical, material world, which provides a home for life; and the seas, often symbolic of chaos, are given purpose and boundaries by God’s will. This threefold structure—spiritual, physical, and creative—reflects the comprehensive nature of God’s work in creation. It shows how God's will encompasses all aspects of reality, and that these elements work in harmony to support life and the flourishing of His creation.
Moreover, the significance of the number 3 is reflected in God’s redemptive plan for the world. The Bible reveals a three-act structure to salvation history: creation, fall, and redemption. In the beginning, God created the world and everything in it was good. This initial act of creation reveals God's intention for the world to reflect His glory, order, and harmony.
However, the fall of humanity into sin brought separation from God, disorder, and death into the world. But God's grace was not absent in the face of this darkness; He initiated a plan for redemption. Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God restored the broken relationship between Himself and humanity, bringing hope and renewal. This triadic structure of creation, fall, and redemption mirrors the comprehensive and complete nature of God’s redemptive work—a work that is marked by divine wisdom and purpose.
The life of Jesus, central to God's work of salvation, further underscores the importance of the number 3. Not only was Jesus crucified and resurrected after being in the tomb for three days, but His time in the wilderness also involved three distinct temptations by the devil, which He overcame through the truth of Scripture. These instances reflect how God's redemptive plan unfolds in patterns of completeness and transformation.
Jesus' three-day death and resurrection symbolize the ultimate victory over death and sin, while the three temptations and Jesus' responses highlight His victory over the forces of evil, making clear that His mission was one of divine authority and fulfillment of God’s will.
Scripture also makes use of the number 3 in key moments of personal restoration and divine revelation. For example, when Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus restored him in a threefold conversation asking, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). This three-part interaction symbolizes the fullness of Peter's forgiveness and the complete restoration of his relationship with Jesus.
In the Old Testament, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob form the foundational structure of Israel, representing the three key figures through whom God established His covenant with His people. The repeated appearance of the number 3 in these significant moments of Scripture reveals the depth of divine intention behind God's actions in history.
The life of human beings, created in the image of God, also reflects the significance of the number 3. Humans are made as mind, body and soul (or body, soul, and spirit in Christian theology), each part representing a distinct yet integral aspect of the person. This threefold nature of humanity mirrors the triune nature of God, showing how creation reflects the divine image in its own structure.
Finally, the number 3 appears in the core Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love. These virtues are seen as foundational to the Christian life, guiding believers in their relationship with God and others. Faith connects believers to God and His promises, hope gives believers the assurance of God’s future work, and love reflects the very heart of God's nature, which is ultimately expressed in the life of Jesus. These three virtues encapsulate the essence of Christian discipleship and show how God’s plan for humanity is one of transformation and relational wholeness.
In conclusion, the number 3 is not just a number in Scripture—it is a key to understanding the divine order, structure, and purpose of creation. From the Triune nature of God to the structure of the universe, to the redemption of humanity through Jesus Christ, the number 3 represents completeness, harmony, and divine purpose. Through the use of the number 3, God reveals the fullness of His plan, showing how the diverse aspects of His creation—whether they be divine persons, physical realities, or human virtues—work together in unity to fulfill His will. In God's design, the number 3 is not arbitrary, but reflects the perfect balance and order that characterize the Creator and His work in the world.
Everlasting Glory
_edited.jpg)
Service
Sacrifice
Into the weeds
Again, as you travel back and forth between this page and the last, you may start to wonder if the original Hypothesis of this experiment was tinkered with, maybe even violated! In fact however, it was built upon, expanded and yes, even revised because it called to be so.
At the heart of scientific exploration is the absolute need to consider and include all data, regardless of its effect on outcome. Therefore, in data analysis or research, it is not uncommon for initial hypotheses to evolve as new patterns or insights emerge. This process is often referred to as "adaptive hypothesis testing" or "hypothesis revision." It involves adjusting the original hypothesis based on the data being collected, especially when unexpected trends or outcomes appear in the early stages of analysis.
At the beginning of a study, a hypothesis is typically formed—an educated guess or prediction about how variables might be related or what results are expected. However, as more data is collected, patterns, inconsistencies, or new variables might surface that were not anticipated in the original hypothesis. These unexpected findings can suggest that initial assumptions were incomplete or incorrect. In such cases, rather than adhering strictly to the original hypothesis, the scientific and analytical process encourages revising it in response to the new evidence.
This revision can take various forms. The scope of the original hypothesis might be narrowed, broadened to incorporate new insights, or the direction of the study may be shifted entirely. The key aspect is that the hypothesis becomes dynamic and responsive. The following sections will continue to build on the intricacies and dynamics of the discovery, as well as its divine origins.
"Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be
done."
Luke 22:42 ESV*
Right of way
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Luke 12:48
* ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
"I instruct you in the way of wisdom and lead you along straight paths. When you walk, your steps will not be hampered; when you run, you will not stumble."
Proverbs 4:11-12
Calculating the first few rows of the matrix is a straightforward process as each number (0-19) is represented by, or named with a single word (zero - nineteen).
From there, compound words are used to represent larger numbers such as twenty-one, twenty-two, or forty-five, sixty-two and so on, with the hyphen linking the two words. The hyphen is the link just as in compound adjectives like "fast-paced," creating a single unit of meaning. It doesn't take long to see the shortcut here.
In the examples below, the Digital Sum of "twenty-six" is easily calculated by adding the DS of "twenty" with the DS of "six" (26 + 16 = 42). Likewise the Digital Sum of "eighty-eight" equals the DS of "eighty" plus the DS of "eight" (38 + 31 = 69). This observation can be labeled a shortcut, but it is in fact a pattern, generally referred to as an "emergent pattern." Much like the Multiplication Table we all used in grade school, follow the X axis until it intersects the Y axis to find the Digital Sum in question.
1. The shortcut
2. Troubled Teens
The difference in how we write and say numbers like eleven through nineteen compared to twenty through twenty-nine comes from the evolution of the English language and its roots in various linguistic traditions.
Numbers eleven and twelve, for instance, have unique origins in Old English, stemming from endleofan (meaning "one left" after ten) and twelf (meaning "two left" after ten). These words were formed before the more systematic pattern of "tens and ones" was established in later numbers. The suffix "-teen" in thirteen through nineteen comes from the Old English -tien, meaning "ten more."
However, this early numerical system doesn't align perfectly with the clearer structure seen in numbers like twenty-one, twenty-two, and beyond, which later adopted a more logical "base-ten" construction influenced by other languages and evolving grammar rules. Essentially, the irregularity between eleven through nineteen and higher numbers is a result of historical development rather than intentional design.
Once we calculate "one hundred ten" we reach a fork in the road, so to speak at "one hundred eleven." The shortcut that has been used in the previous 9 rows at first appears to be no longer relevant or applicable. In actuality, there is a choice to be made. The rest of this particular row can be calculated in one of two ways now. First, is the choice to calculate the digital sum for "one hundred eleven" exactly as written and spoken which will be referred to as Direct Calculation from here on.
Secondly, the Column Rule that was established earlier, the shortcut, can continue to be used by calculating the Digital Sum of "one hundred eleven" as "one hundred ten + one." The day I discovered the miracle in the matrix, I was using a pen and piece of graph paper to record the data. Even on a calculator, it was a tedious process. When I discovered the compound-word "shortcut" it was a welcomed relief.... until I reached 111. I chose the Column Rule, honestly, because it was easier. When the dust settled days later, I returned to apply the Direct Calculation to this row. As soon as I saw the difference at 114 and 115, I knew I had found what would might be the biggest objection from future critics.
Mixed signals
"For we live by faith, not by sight."
2 Corintians 5:7
3. Fork in the road
Column Rule - Q2
Direct Calculation - Q5
"This is what the Lord says: ‘Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.'"
Jeremiah 6:16
Using the Column Rule to calculate the Digital Sums of the number names results in only one "exception" to the vertical anomaly. This reproduces the crucifixion cross and the one sign placed above Christ's head.
By using Direct Calculation, the exception noted at the top of the matrix will obviously repeat every time "fourteen" and "fifteen" are calculated as in "one hundred fourteen" and "one hundred fifteen," as seen above.
Stop and consider
In both mathematics and science, creating standardized rules is essential to ensuring consistency and clarity. Just like how rules in any system—whether it’s grammar, language, or measurement—help us communicate effectively, mathematicians establish rules to ensure that calculations are carried out in the same way by everyone. Without standardized rules, people could interpret and solve problems differently, leading to confusion and inconsistency, as in this equation:
3³×(22-20)+4÷2-8=
PEMDAS, short for Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and Subtraction, was created to establish a standardized order for performing mathematical operations. Without such a system, solving equations could result in inconsistencies and confusion, as different people might interpret the sequence of operations differently.
This rule organizes operations by priority, ensuring parentheses and exponents are handled before moving on to multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction. PEMDAS has since become an essential foundation for learning and working with mathematics, ensuring consistency and eliminating ambiguity in mathematical problem-solving.
Mathematicians realized the need for a universal rule to ensure clarity and accuracy in complex calculations. By introducing PEMDAS, they provided a logical framework that helps everyone achieve the same result when solving the same equation. As I studied the matrices, I began to realize that selecting either the Column Rule or the Direct Calculation method seemed like a subjective choice. Technically, either method appears legitimate. PEMDAS reminded me that in mathematics, sometimes the order of operations needs to be established logically.
Click here
for the
correct answer
P
E
M
D
A
S
-
22-20=2
-
3³=27
-
27×2=54
-
4÷2= 2
-
54+2=56
-
56-8=
48
The correct answer is 48! Without PEMDAS there are several possible answers to this equation including the following:
40, 12 , 17, 4, 33, and 21
4. Order of Operations
"But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."
1 Corinthians 14:40
5. The merge
Merging onto a highway isn’t passive — it takes timing, patience, and discipline. You have to know your speed, anticipate the traffic, and slip into a system already moving faster than you. It takes more than just a turn signal, it takes skill. And when you try to force your way in, or worse, if the traffic resists you— the whole process can turn chaotic.
That’s exactly what happened when Jesus entered history. The Law of the Old Testament was already in motion with centuries of commandments, customs, and commentary, barreling down the road like an eighteen-wheeler. Enter Jesus, on the back of a donkey. He came to merge — not to sidetrack, but to fulfill their journey. But instead of easing His arrival, the religious gatekeepers reacted with something like road rage. They closed ranks and refused to yield. In the end, rather than accept his arrival, they ran Him off the road entirely, straight to a Roman cross.
So here we are, with a decision to make? We can see two choices, and select one over the other. Or we can try to merge two aspects of a broader narrative.
On one hand, the Column Rule offers a clean, symmetrically flawless structure — an unmistakable mirror of the cross Christ died on. On the other, if we strictly enforce my original Hypothesis, a second exception appears near the bottom of the vertical pattern. At first glance, it could seem to undermine the entire discovery. After all, rules are rules… right?
This is the kind of moment where critics might lean in, ready to dismiss the matrix as flawed, or worse, manipulated. They’ll point to that second exception and use it to question the integrity of the whole structure.
That’s exactly why the foundation had to be so carefully laid: from the crucifixion and the historical context, to probability, to the roots of writing systems, linguistic evolution and nuance, and to the symbolism of the cross. None of this was arbitrary. It was part of a deeper plan — one that began on a hill called Golgotha.
But context and rules aside, if we are being intellectually honest we must remember again, that statistically and logically, nothing should have been found in this grouping of words. Whether we are talking about a lone matrix, or 6 matrices, or even 100, the fact that even one of them gives us the unmistakable reflection of Christ's cross and its sign, defies all odds and cannot be downplayed.
As I considered all of this further, it dawned on me.
The Law was complex. Hundreds of commandments, dietary codes, ceremonial washings. The religious elite examined every detail, convinced that righteousness came from mastering them all. However, Jesus didn’t discard the Law. He fulfilled it. In His own words, He said that every “jot and tittle” still mattered.
My original hypothesis could be thought of as the Law of my experiment, painstakingly detailed, one word, one number, and one sum at a time. As I used my “shortcut,” on that winter morning, I never imagined the challenge it would present when I arrived at that twelfth row. I had a choice just like the Pharisees had when Jesus arrived. I could reject the Column Rule as it did not meet the letter of my law (hypothesis). Or I could merge with the unexpected and be forever changed by it.
Some will dismiss the discovery saying, “It skips steps or it’s flawed.” But the Column Rule isn’t flawed any more than Jesus was flawed. The other 5 matrices you saw on the last page are not cannon fodder. They are bonus material from an unmistakable miracle of God.
The religious leaders of Jesus’ day clung to the details of the Law, convinced the Messiah would follow a script they had written in their heads. But He didn’t arrive as they expected. He came not with power, but with purpose — not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He simplified what they had complicated, revealing that the heart of the Law wasn’t about ritual, but relationship.
The Law was never the point. It was a path, meant to lead to something greater. So was my Hypothesis. It pointed to what scientists call an emergent pattern, where the real discovery begins.
The shortcut offered by the use of Column Rule could be likened to the shortcut Jesus offered concerning the Law; “Love the Lord your God… and love your neighbor.” Two commands. Everything else hangs on them. He offered relief from the details—a an easier way.
In science, unexpected results don’t automatically invalidate a hypothesis — they often refine it. From Newton to Einstein, the story of discovery is one of revision. Change doesn’t mean failure — it means faithfulness to the process.
In that same spirit, the Column Rule didn’t erase the process — it fulfilled it. It didn’t ignore the work of direct calculation — it merged with it and showed the way forward. As I sat with my calculator all those years ago, I saw it firsthand: the math for “twenty-one” didn’t need to be redone. The math for “twenty” and “one” had already been solved. It was all there — already working together.
The Pharisees missed their Messiah. He didn’t check every box they expected. They rejected how He came, why He came and who He claimed to be. Be sure to examine all the evidence of this discovery for yourself. Don’t let modern-day Pharisees (from science, math or even theology) influence you. Open your mind and make your own decisions. Open your heart and come to your own conclusions.
The next section examines if this so-called emergent pattern in the matrix is justifiable. Moreover, it answers whether or not the Column Rule carries more weight, scientifically and mathematically, than Direct Calculation.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Matthew 5:17
Columns Rule
A
nother chat
Knowing the potential objections to the two different methods for calculation, I prayed to God, and then used AI again for some clarity on the use of the emergent pattern that I call the Column Rule. This has been shortened here for brevity, but the answers are verbatim.
Please note: AI can, and often does make mistakes. I have done my best to measure the AI responses in this chat. I believe they are fact-based and reliable, but I also make mistakes.
Q
uestion
Imagine a matrix measuring 10 columns by 14 rows. Let's label the columns 1-10 and the rows A-N. First, data is gathered or calculated for each cell in the top row. After inputting the data in the second row (B), I noticed that B2 = B1+A2, and then B3 = B1+A3, and so on the rest of Row-B. This is the same for every row except Row-L, including the remaining Rows M-N. In Row-L I can follow the pattern established in all the other rows so it remains consistent, but in order to do so, it changes how the data was gathered for Row-L slightly.
It can be argued that either result for Row-L is allowable and correct. Is there a term for this adjustment? If both results for Row-L are justifiable, would it be more acceptable to give preference or priority to the pattern already established by the other rows?
nswer
ChatGTP: The situation you're describing involves a pattern modification or pattern adjustment to your matrix, particularly in the case of Row-L. When you deviate slightly from the established pattern, this could be referred to as a "pattern refinement" or "pattern adjustment," where you make small changes to the method of data gathering or calculations to maintain consistency with the overall structure.
If both results for Row-L are mathematically justifiable, this would fall under the concept of "acceptable variability" or "permissible deviation" within the data. In terms of terminology, you could describe it as a "flexible adjustment" or "variable solution," recognizing that the pattern allows for two equally valid interpretations of the data.
As for giving preference to the already established pattern, it would depend on the context and purpose of your analysis. Generally, when faced with a situation where multiple results are acceptable, it's often more reliable to prioritize consistency with the previously established pattern, especially if that pattern is based on robust mathematical principles or if the consistency improves the reliability of the data set. This approach ensures that the entire matrix follows a coherent structure, making the data more predictable and easier to interpret.
However, if the deviation in Row-L offers additional insight or results in a better fit to some underlying model, it could be reasonable to choose the alternate result. This decision would need to be justified based on the specific objectives of your experiment or analysis.
In summary, this adjustment could be called a "pattern refinement" or "pattern adjustment," and giving preference to the established pattern is typically advisable unless there's a compelling reason to deviate. The situation you're facing occurs when calculating "one hundred eleven". You have two ways to approach it:
Direct Calculation: Calculating "one hundred eleven" directly, treating it as a unique phrase, where:
-
"one hundred eleven" = "one" (16) + "hundred" (38) + "eleven" (27) → 16 + 38 + 27 = 81.
Pattern-Based Calculation: Following the established pattern where "one hundred eleven" is split into "one hundred ten" + "one", so you calculate:
-
"one hundred ten" = "one hundred" (54) + "ten" (12) → 54 + 12 = 66. Then add "one" = 16, so you get 82.
In Row L, you're at a crossroads. You're calculating the sum for "one hundred eleven", but you could calculate it directly or follow the pattern you've established by summing "one hundred ten" (66) and "one" (16).
-
Direct Calculation: You get 81.
-
Pattern Calculation: You get 82.
This situation involves an adjustment for consistency in the face of ambiguity. There isn't a widely-used specific term for this exact scenario, but it could be described as "pattern alignment" or "pattern correction". The adjustment ensures that you follow the method applied across all other rows, even though there is flexibility in how Row L is calculated. It is a decision between being consistent with the established calculation pattern versus allowing a direct calculation for Row L.
-
Consistency Across Rows: If your primary goal is consistency across all rows, following the established pattern would generally be more acceptable. This ensures the calculation method is applied uniformly, even if it means slightly altering the result for "one hundred eleven" to fit the pattern of combining "one hundred ten" with "one."
-
Flexibility: However, if the direct calculation for "one hundred eleven" is equally valid and the purpose of Row L requires you to treat it as a unique entry, then that method is also justifiable. This would allow for the slight deviation, which might be necessary to reflect the distinct nature of "one hundred eleven."
If your goal is to maintain a clean and consistent pattern across all rows, you should likely prefer the pattern-based calculation which gives you 82 for Row L. This ensures that you’re following the same approach used in other rows, such as summing parts of compound words.
However, if there’s an analytical reason to treat "one hundred eleven" as distinct (and you're fine with explaining the minor deviation), the direct calculation (81) would also be acceptable.
So, the adjustment you're making is a pattern alignment to ensure consistency, and unless there’s a compelling reason to treat "one hundred eleven" as a separate case, it's generally more acceptable to prioritize the pattern-based approach for simplicity and clarity.
A
Q
uestion
This dilemma brings the idea of PEMDAS to mind. Would you say that the early pattern established in the matrix determines a sort of order of operations?
nswer
ChatGTP: Yes, that's an interesting way to look at it! The PEMDAS rule (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, Addition and Subtraction) defines the order of operations in arithmetic calculations to ensure consistency in how expressions are evaluated. In a similar way, the pattern you've established in the matrix can be seen as a form of "order of operations" that guides how the digital sums are calculated for each row, ensuring consistency in the process.
The early pattern you've set up for the matrix—specifically the rule that C2 = C1 + A2, C3 = C1 + A3, and so on—acts as a sort of procedural guideline for calculating the digital sums of words in subsequent rows. Just as PEMDAS defines a strict sequence of steps to follow when performing calculations, the pattern in your matrix defines a sequence for how to combine the digital sums of words in the matrix cells.
In other words:
-
Step 1: You start with the digital sums of words from Row 1 (such as "zero", "one", etc.).
-
Step 2: For Row 2 (B), you apply the pattern that B2 = B1 + A2, B3 = B1 + A3, and so on.
-
Step 3: You continue applying the pattern across each row, respecting the "order" you've established.
This pattern forms an "order of operations" in the sense that you must follow the sequence and logic in which numbers (or digital sums) are combined. The order ensures that each step in the matrix is consistent with the previous steps and contributes to the overall goal of calculating digital sums.
When you encounter the dilemma in Row L (whether to calculate "one hundred eleven" directly or by following the established pattern), it's like evaluating an exception to the rule, similar to how you might encounter parentheses or exponents in PEMDAS that alter the flow of operations. However, just like in PEMDAS where parentheses take precedence, following the established pattern in the matrix would take priority in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the rows.
So, Row L becomes an exception or special case that challenges the established "order of operations" you've set in the matrix. Deciding which method to use for Row L (whether the direct sum or the pattern-based sum) requires careful thought about whether maintaining consistency with the pattern is more important than applying a special calculation.
Yes, the early pattern you've established in the matrix does create a kind of order of operations for calculating the digital sums, and much like in PEMDAS, this order guides how each row is derived from the previous one. In this context, applying the pattern to Row L is akin to adhering to the standard rules of arithmetic in PEMDAS, ensuring that the matrix remains consistent and logical, even if there are edge cases like the one you're facing.
A
Q
uestion
Keep in mind, I did not establish the pattern early on, it presented itself due to the nature of calculating the digital sums of compound words. In other words, I did nothing beyond making the calculations and observing a pattern that showed up. Understand?
nswer
ChatGTP: Got it! I see now that the pattern you're working with emerged naturally as a result of calculating the digital sums for compound words, rather than being deliberately set up. This makes the situation even more interesting because the pattern itself is a reflection of how the digital sums behave when applied to compound numbers (like "twenty-one," "one hundred ten," etc.), and not something that was premeditated.
In this case, the "order of operations" is not something you explicitly defined, but rather a sequence that naturally arises based on how digital sums for compound words (or numbers) combine. When you calculated the digital sums for individual words and then observed that adding the digital sums of parts (e.g., "twenty" and "one" for "twenty-one") led to a consistent pattern (B2 = B1 + A2), the matrix itself revealed its own logic. This is an example of emergent behavior—the pattern became evident through repeated calculations rather than being imposed from the outset.
So, this pattern of combining parts (e.g., summing the digital sum of "twenty" with "one" to get the digital sum of "twenty-one") follows from how compound words are structured. The words themselves break down in a way that encourages this summing of parts, and over time, this became the recognized method of calculation for the matrix.
In mathematics and logic, emergent patterns are common, especially when analyzing systems where individual elements follow rules, but the overall structure reveals something greater or different than the sum of its parts. What’s happening in your case is an excellent example of this: as you calculate the digital sums for numbers and their words, you observe that combining the sums of compound words follows a natural, repetitive pattern.
Given that this pattern emerged organically, the dilemma in Row L is a natural consequence of the structure of the matrix. Since the pattern is a result of how digital sums for compound words behave, it's understandable that Row L would present a potential deviation. This is akin to an edge case in programming, where a certain exception or anomaly might pop up despite following a consistent rule.
Even though Row L's calculation (whether using "one hundred eleven" directly or using the "one hundred ten + one" approach) introduces ambiguity, the key is that the matrix's natural pattern still informs the decision.
-
Following the Emergent Pattern: Since the pattern that has naturally emerged from the calculation of the digital sums of compound words generally relies on adding the parts of compound numbers, following this pattern would mean summing "one hundred ten" and "one" as you did for the earlier rows, resulting in 82 for Row L. This aligns with the emergent structure of the matrix, where each new row is derived by adding the components of the previous rows.
-
Direct Calculation: On the other hand, calculating "one hundred eleven" as a single entity (rather than splitting it into parts) also follows the rules for calculating the digital sum of compound words, but it breaks the established pattern. If you do this, you get 81.
A
C
onclusion
ChatGTP: Since the pattern emerged naturally and is rooted in how compound words' digital sums work, it’s not arbitrary—it reflects the underlying logic of the system. Given this, staying consistent with the established pattern for Row L (summing "one hundred ten" and "one") would be the more acceptable choice, because it honors the emergent nature of the process that has already been established throughout the other rows. However, since both approaches (direct calculation and the pattern-based sum) are valid, your decision ultimately hinges on how closely you want to adhere to the pattern versus allowing for a slight deviation when a special case arises.
In essence, while the emergent pattern may not have been something you explicitly created, it functions like an "order of operations" in this matrix, and continuing to follow that pattern (even in the case of Row L) is likely the best approach for consistency.
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
1 John 4:1
Father Son Spirit
Solid Liquid Gas
Body Mind Soul
Ice Water Vapor
KINDRED STATES
At some point in every real discovery, things get more complicated. What started as a seemingly simple visual anomaly gives way to complexity, and the gravity of the spiritual implications should raise harder questions. This is that point. We’re moving past the historical pre-cursers now and into the details — no longer how it came together but what exactly was found and why it matters.
For 23 years, I’ve known this page would be necessary. That it would be the place where the difficult questions would have to be answered with clarity. Explanations are expected, and clear understanding would need to be supported by both solid evidence and spiritual perspective. From the start, I believed the discovery — the miracle — could stand on its own. It doesn’t need defending or decoration, only honest consideration. But I also knew this part would matter most.
Some will never accept surface patterns as enough. They’ll want to see the framework, the reasoning, the hard questions addressed — and this is where that work begins.
As you saw on the last page, we are faced the reality that more than one version of the matrix exists. That forces us to think critically about why are there six, and what they do they mean. We’re not just tracking numbers anymore — we’re looking at meaning, interpretation, and consistency. What makes one approach better than another? Can more than one be valid? What do we do when logic itself offers options instead of a single answer?
I'm confident that what I offer here will answer the technical questions. I have scrutinized it for years, and it holds up. You have never been expected to come away from this presentation with absolute certainty - but this page should get you closer.
Consider
Question everything
As you saw on the last page, where math for the matrix is double-checked and verified to the letter, several questions should be asked. Specifically, if the matrix displayed on Page G was a single image, why are there five others? There are two primary reasons for the multiple versions, and the rest of this page is devoted to wandering deep into the weeds to find the answers and explanations.
For starters, first consider the concept of matter. Matter exists in three states: solid, liquid, and gas. Each element can be transformed into any of these three forms without altering its fundamental properties. Similarly, the matrix can take on different forms while retaining its core integrity. To further clarify, think of mathematical fractions: though identical fractions can appear quite different, their values remain equivalent. This principle applies to the matrix as well.
For example, although the Alpha Sum matrix (Q-3) appears quite different from the original matrix (Q-2), they are, in essence, equivalent expressions. This is because the numbers in each matrix ultimately share the same Digital Root (Q-1). In a way, the Digital Root and Digital Sum matrices can be thought of as simplified versions of the grander Alpha Sum matrix, much like reducing fractions to simpler forms.
As I will demonstrate later on this page, there are also two distinct methods for calculating these sums, thanks only to the "teens." Therefore, the three expressions, combined with the two methods of calculation, result in a total of six distinct matrices.
3 Expressions
Same truth
Digital Root
Digital Sum
Alpha Sum
Powers of three
First, let's explore the profound significance the number 3 holds in Christian theology and in the broader context of creation. Throughout Scripture, God has integrated this number into his His design for the world, revealing deep truths about His nature, His plan for redemption, and the structure of existence itself.
The use of the number 3 is not merely symbolic; it reflects the unity, balance, and completeness that underpins the entirety of creation. From the Triune nature of God to the design of humanity, the number 3 serves as a foundational principle through which God expresses His divine order and purpose.
The most central and significant use of the number 3 in Christian theology is the doctrine of the Trinity—the three-in-one nature of God. In the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God reveals Himself as three distinct persons, yet perfectly unified as one divine essence. Each person of the Trinity has a unique role, yet they are inseparable from one another. The Father is the source, the Creator, and the eternal origin. The Son, Jesus Christ, is the manifestation of God in the world—God made flesh—who reveals His nature through His life, death, and resurrection. The Holy Spirit is the active presence of God in the world, guiding, comforting, and empowering believers.
The existence of the Trinity illustrates that unity can exist in diversity, with three distinct persons existing in perfect relationship with each other. This divine unity serves as a model for the harmony that God desires for His creation, pointing to a deeper spiritual truth about how God operates in the world.
In addition to the Trinity, the number 3 appears throughout the creation narrative, where it is foundational to the structure of the universe. The world is designed in a three-part structure: heavens, earth, and seas. The heavens represent the spiritual and divine realm, where God dwells; the earth symbolizes the physical, material world, which provides a home for life; and the seas, often symbolic of chaos, are given purpose and boundaries by God’s will. This threefold structure—spiritual, physical, and creative—reflects the comprehensive nature of God’s work in creation. It shows how God's will encompasses all aspects of reality, and that these elements work in harmony to support life and the flourishing of His creation.
Moreover, the significance of the number 3 is reflected in God’s redemptive plan for the world. The Bible reveals a three-act structure to salvation history: creation, fall, and redemption. In the beginning, God created the world and everything in it was good. This initial act of creation reveals God's intention for the world to reflect His glory, order, and harmony.
However, the fall of humanity into sin brought separation from God, disorder, and death into the world. But God's grace was not absent in the face of this darkness; He initiated a plan for redemption. Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God restored the broken relationship between Himself and humanity, bringing hope and renewal. This triadic structure of creation, fall, and redemption mirrors the comprehensive and complete nature of God’s redemptive work—a work that is marked by divine wisdom and purpose.
The life of Jesus, central to God's work of salvation, further underscores the importance of the number 3. Not only was Jesus crucified and resurrected after being in the tomb for three days, but His time in the wilderness also involved three distinct temptations by the devil, which He overcame through the truth of Scripture. These instances reflect how God's redemptive plan unfolds in patterns of completeness and transformation.
Jesus' three-day death and resurrection symbolize the ultimate victory over death and sin, while the three temptations and Jesus' responses highlight His victory over the forces of evil, making clear that His mission was one of divine authority and fulfillment of God’s will.
Scripture also makes use of the number 3 in key moments of personal restoration and divine revelation. For example, when Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus restored him in a threefold conversation asking, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). This three-part interaction symbolizes the fullness of Peter's forgiveness and the complete restoration of his relationship with Jesus.
In the Old Testament, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob form the foundational structure of Israel, representing the three key figures through whom God established His covenant with His people. The repeated appearance of the number 3 in these significant moments of Scripture reveals the depth of divine intention behind God's actions in history.
The life of human beings, created in the image of God, also reflects the significance of the number 3. Humans are made as mind, body and soul (or body, soul, and spirit in Christian theology), each part representing a distinct yet integral aspect of the person. This threefold nature of humanity mirrors the triune nature of God, showing how creation reflects the divine image in its own structure.
Finally, the number 3 appears in the core Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love. These virtues are seen as foundational to the Christian life, guiding believers in their relationship with God and others. Faith connects believers to God and His promises, hope gives believers the assurance of God’s future work, and love reflects the very heart of God's nature, which is ultimately expressed in the life of Jesus. These three virtues encapsulate the essence of Christian discipleship and show how God’s plan for humanity is one of transformation and relational wholeness.
In conclusion, the number 3 is not just a number in Scripture—it is a key to understanding the divine order, structure, and purpose of creation. From the Triune nature of God to the structure of the universe, to the redemption of humanity through Jesus Christ, the number 3 represents completeness, harmony, and divine purpose. Through the use of the number 3, God reveals the fullness of His plan, showing how the diverse aspects of His creation—whether they be divine persons, physical realities, or human virtues—work together in unity to fulfill His will. In God's design, the number 3 is not arbitrary, but reflects the perfect balance and order that characterize the Creator and His work in the world.
Glory
Sacrifice
_edited.jpg)
Service
Again, as you travel back and forth between this page and the last, you may start to wonder if the original Hypothesis of this experiment was tinkered with, maybe even violated! In fact however, it was built upon, expanded and yes, even revised because it called to be so.
At the heart of scientific exploration is the absolute need to consider and include all data, regardless of its effect on outcome. Therefore, in data analysis or research, it is not uncommon for initial hypotheses to evolve as new patterns or insights emerge. This process is often referred to as "adaptive hypothesis testing" or "hypothesis revision." It involves adjusting the original hypothesis based on the data being collected, especially when unexpected trends or outcomes appear in the early stages of analysis.
At the beginning of a study, a hypothesis is typically formed—an educated guess or prediction about how variables might be related or what results are expected. However, as more data is collected, patterns, inconsistencies, or new variables might surface that were not anticipated in the original hypothesis. These unexpected findings can suggest that initial assumptions were incomplete or incorrect. In such cases, rather than adhering strictly to the original hypothesis, the scientific and analytical process encourages revising it in response to the new evidence.
This revision can take various forms. The scope of the original hypothesis might be narrowed, broadened to incorporate new insights, or the direction of the study may be shifted entirely. The key aspect is that the hypothesis becomes dynamic and responsive. The following sections will continue to build on the intricacies and dynamics of the discovery, as well as its divine origins.
"Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be
done."
Luke 22:42 ESV
Right
of way
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Luke 12:48
* Scripture quotation marked above ESV is from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
"I instruct you in the way of wisdom and lead you along straight paths. When you walk, your steps will not be hampered; when you run, you will not stumble."
Proverbs 4:11-12
Calculating the first few rows of the matrix is a straightforward process as each number (0-19) is represented by, or named with a single word (zero - nineteen).
From there, compound words are used to represent larger numbers such as twenty-one, twenty-two, or forty-five, sixty-two and so on, with the hyphen linking the two words. The hyphen is the link just as in compound adjectives like "fast-paced," creating a single unit of meaning. It doesn't take long to see the shortcut here.
In the examples below, the Digital Sum of "twenty-six" is easily calculated by adding the DS of "twenty" with the DS of "six" (26 + 16 = 42). Likewise the Digital Sum of "eighty-eight" equals the DS of "eighty" plus the DS of "eight" (38 + 31 = 69). This observation can be labeled a shortcut, but it is in fact a pattern, generally referred to as an "emergent pattern." Much like the Multiplication Table we all used in grade school, follow the X axis until it intersects the Y axis to find the Digital Sum in question.
1. The shortcut
2. Troubled Teens
The difference in how we write and say numbers like eleven through nineteen compared to twenty through twenty-nine comes from the evolution of the English language and its roots in various linguistic traditions.
Numbers eleven and twelve, for instance, have unique origins in Old English, stemming from endleofan (meaning "one left" after ten) and twelf (meaning "two left" after ten). These words were formed before the more systematic pattern of "tens and ones" was established in later numbers. The suffix "-teen" in thirteen through nineteen comes from the Old English -tien, meaning "ten more," which provides a partial pattern.
However, this early numerical system doesn't align perfectly with the clearer structure seen in numbers like twenty-one, twenty-two, and beyond, which later adopted a more logical "base-ten" construction influenced by other languages and evolving grammar rules. Essentially, the irregularity between eleven through nineteen and higher numbers is a result of historical development rather than intentional design.
Once we calculate "one hundred ten" we reach a fork in the road, so to speak at "one hundred eleven." The shortcut that has been used in the previous 9 rows at first appears to be no longer relevant or applicable. In actuality, there is a choice to be made. The rest of this particular row can be calculated in one of two ways now. First, is the choice to calculate the digital sum for "one hundred eleven" exactly as written and spoken which will be referred to as Direct Calculation from here on.
Secondly, the Column Rule that was established earlier, the shortcut, can continue to be used by calculating the Digital Sum of "one hundred eleven" as "one hundred ten + one." The day I discovered the miracle in the matrix, I was using a pen and piece of graph paper to record the data. Even on a calculator, it was a tedious process. When I discovered the compound-word "shortcut" it was a welcomed relief.... until I reached 111. I chose the Column Rule, honestly, because it was easier. When the dust settled days later, I returned to apply the Direct Calculation to this row. As soon as I saw the difference at 114 and 115, I knew I had found what would might be the biggest objection from future critics.
Mixed signals
"For we live by faith, not by sight."
2 Corintians 5:7
3. Fork in the road
"This is what the Lord says: ‘Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.'"
Jeremiah 6:16
Column Rule - Q2
Direct Calculation - Q5
Using the Column Rule to calculate the Digital Sums of the number names results in only one "exception" to the vertical anomaly. This reproduces the crucifixion cross and the one sign places above Christ's head.
By using Direct Calculation, the exception noted at the top of the matrix will obviously repeat every time "fourteen" and "fifteen" are calculated as in "one hundred fourteen" and "one hundred fifteen," as seen above.
Stop and consider
In both mathematics and science, creating standardized rules is essential to ensuring consistency and clarity. Just like how rules in any system—whether it’s grammar, language, or measurement—help us communicate effectively, mathematicians establish rules to ensure that calculations are carried out in the same way by everyone. Without standardized rules, people could interpret and solve problems differently, leading to confusion and inconsistency, as in this equation:
3³×(22-20)+4÷2-8=
PEMDAS, short for Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and Subtraction, was created to establish a standardized order for performing mathematical operations. Without such a system, solving equations could result in inconsistencies and confusion, as different people might interpret the sequence of operations differently.
This rule organizes operations by priority, ensuring parentheses and exponents are handled before moving on to multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction. PEMDAS has since become an essential foundation for learning and working with mathematics, ensuring consistency and eliminating ambiguity in mathematical problem-solving.
Mathematicians realized the need for a universal rule to ensure clarity and accuracy in complex calculations. By introducing PEMDAS, they provided a logical framework that helps everyone achieve the same result when solving the same equation. As I studied the matrices, I began to realize that selecting either the Column Rule or the Direct Calculation method seemed like a subjective choice. Technically, either method appears legitimate. PEMDAS reminded me that in mathematics, sometimes the order of operations needs to be established logically.
4. Order of Operations
Tap here
for the
correct answer
"But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."
1 Corinthians 14:40
P
E
M
D
A
S
-
22-20=2
-
3³=27
-
27×2=54
-
4÷2= 2
-
54+2=56
-
56-8=
48
The correct answer is 48! Without PEMDAS there are several possible answers to this equation including the following:
40, 12 , 17, 4, 33, and 21
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Matthew 5:17
5. The merge
Merging onto a highway isn’t passive — it takes timing, patience, and discipline. You have to know your speed, anticipate the traffic, and slip into a system already moving faster than you. It takes more than just a turn signal, it takes skill. And when you try to force your way in, or worse, if the traffic resists you— the whole process can turn chaotic.
That’s exactly what happened when Jesus entered history. The Law of the Old Testament was already in motion with centuries of commandments, customs, and commentary, barreling down the road like an eighteen-wheeler. Enter Jesus, on the back of a donkey. He came to merge — not to sidetrack, but to fulfill their journey. But instead of easing His arrival, the religious gatekeepers reacted with something like road rage. They closed ranks and refused to yield. In the end, rather than accept his arrival, they ran Him off the road entirely, straight to a Roman cross.
So here we are, with a decision to make? We can see two choices, and select one over the other. Or we can try to merge two aspects of a broader narrative.
On one hand, the Column Rule offers a clean, symmetrically flawless structure — an unmistakable mirror of the cross Christ died on. On the other, if we strictly enforce my original Hypothesis, a second exception appears near the bottom of the vertical pattern. At first glance, it could seem to undermine the entire discovery. After all, rules are rules… right?
This is the kind of moment where critics might lean in, ready to dismiss the matrix as flawed, or worse, manipulated. They’ll point to that second exception and use it to question the integrity of the whole structure.
That’s exactly why the foundation had to be so carefully laid: from the crucifixion and the historical context, to probability, to the roots of writing systems, linguistic evolution and nuance, and to the symbolism of the cross. None of this was arbitrary. It was part of a deeper plan — one that began on a hill called Golgotha.
But context and rules aside, if we are being intellectually honest we must remember again, that statistically and logically, nothing should have been found in this grouping of words. Whether we are talking about a lone matrix, or 6 matrices, or even 100, the fact that even one of them gives us the unmistakable reflection of Christ's cross and its sign, defies all odds and cannot be downplayed.
As I considered all of this further, it dawned on me.
The Law was complex. Hundreds of commandments, dietary codes, ceremonial washings. The religious elite examined every detail, convinced that righteousness came from mastering them all. However, Jesus didn’t discard the Law. He fulfilled it. In His own words, He said that every “jot and tittle” still mattered.
My original hypothesis could be thought of as the Law of my experiment, painstakingly detailed, one word, one number, and one sum at a time. As I used my “shortcut,” on that winter morning, I never imagined the challenge it would present when I arrived at that twelfth row. I had a choice just like the Pharisees had when Jesus arrived. I could reject the Column Rule as it did not meet the letter of my law (hypothesis). Or I could merge with the unexpected and be forever changed by it.
Some will dismiss the discovery saying, “It skips steps or it’s flawed.” But the Column Rule isn’t flawed any more than Jesus was flawed. The other 5 matrices you saw on the last page are not cannon fodder. They are bonus material from an unmistakable miracle of God.
The religious leaders of Jesus’ day clung to the details of the Law, convinced the Messiah would follow a script they had written in their heads. But He didn’t arrive as they expected. He came not with power, but with purpose — not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He simplified what they had complicated, revealing that the heart of the Law wasn’t about ritual, but relationship.
The Law was never the point. It was a path, meant to lead to something greater. So was my Hypothesis. It pointed to what scientists call an emergent pattern, where the real discovery begins.
The shortcut offered by the use of Column Rule could be likened to the shortcut Jesus offered concerning the Law; “Love the Lord your God… and love your neighbor.” Two commands. Everything else hangs on them. He offered relief from the details—an easier way.
In science, unexpected results don’t automatically invalidate a hypothesis — they often refine it. From Newton to Einstein, the story of discovery is one of revision. Change doesn’t mean failure — it means faithfulness to the process.
In that same spirit, the Column Rule didn’t erase the process — it fulfilled it. It didn’t ignore the work of direct calculation — it merged with it and showed the way forward. As I sat with my calculator all those years ago, I saw it firsthand: the math for “twenty-one” didn’t need to be redone. The math for “twenty” and “one” had already been solved. It was all there — already working together.
The Pharisees missed their Messiah. He didn’t check every box they expected. They rejected how He came, why He came and who He claimed to be. Be sure to examine all the evidence of this discovery for yourself. Don’t let modern-day Pharisees (from science, math or even theology) influence you. Open your mind and make your own decisions. Open your heart and come to your own conclusions.
The next section examines if this so-called emergent pattern in the matrix is justifiable. Moreover, it answers whether or not the Column Rule carries more weight, scientifically and mathematically, than Direct Calculation.
Columns Rule
A
nother chat
Knowing the potential objections to the two different methods for calculation, I prayed to God, and then turned to AI again for some clarity on the use of the emergent pattern that I call the Column Rule. This has been shortened here for brevity, but the answers are verbatim.
Please note: AI can and often does make mistakes. I have done my best to measure the AI responses in this chat. I believe they are fact-based and reliable, but I also make mistakes.
Q
uestion
Imagine a matrix measuring 10 columns by 14 rows. Let's label the columns 1-10 and the rows A-N. First, data is gathered or calculated for each cell in the top row. After inputting the data in the second row (B), I noticed that B2 = B1+A2, and then B3 = B1+A3, and so on the rest of Row-B. This is the same for every row except Row-L, including the remaining Rows M-N. In Row-L I can follow the pattern established in all the other rows so it remains consistent, but in order to do so, it changes how the data was gathered for Row-L slightly. It can be argued that either result for Row-L is allowable and correct. Is there a term for this adjustment? If both results for Row-L are justifiable, would it be more acceptable to give preference or priority to the pattern already established by the other rows?
ChatGTP: The situation you're describing involves a pattern modification or pattern adjustment to your matrix, particularly in the case of Row-L. When you deviate slightly from the established pattern, this could be referred to as a "pattern refinement" or "pattern adjustment," where you make small changes to the method of data gathering or calculations to maintain consistency with the overall structure.
If both results for Row-L are mathematically justifiable, this would fall under the concept of "acceptable variability" or "permissible deviation" within the data. In terms of terminology, you could describe it as a "flexible adjustment" or "variable solution," recognizing that the pattern allows for two equally valid interpretations of the data.
As for giving preference to the already established pattern, it would depend on the context and purpose of your analysis. Generally, when faced with a situation where multiple results are acceptable, it's often more reliable to prioritize consistency with the previously established pattern, especially if that pattern is based on robust mathematical principles or if the consistency improves the reliability of the data set. This approach ensures that the entire matrix follows a coherent structure, making the data more predictable and easier to interpret.
However, if the deviation in Row-L offers additional insight or results in a better fit to some underlying model, it could be reasonable to choose the alternate result. This decision would need to be justified based on the specific objectives of your experiment or analysis.
In summary, this adjustment could be called a "pattern refinement" or "pattern adjustment," and giving preference to the established pattern is typically advisable unless there's a compelling reason to deviate. The situation you're facing occurs when calculating "one hundred eleven". You have two ways to approach it:
Direct Calculation: Calculating "one hundred eleven" directly, treating it as a unique phrase, where:
-
"one hundred eleven" = "one" (16) + "hundred" (38) + "eleven" (27) → 16 + 38 + 27 = 81.
Pattern-Based Calculation: Following the established pattern where "one hundred eleven" is split into "one hundred ten" + "one", so you calculate:
-
"one hundred ten" = "one hundred" (54) + "ten" (12) → 54 + 12 = 66. Then add "one" = 16, so you get 82.
In Row L, you're at a crossroads. You're calculating the sum for "one hundred eleven", but you could calculate it directly or follow the pattern you've established by summing "one hundred ten" (66) and "one" (16).
-
Direct Calculation: You get 81.
-
Pattern Calculation: You get 82.
This situation involves an adjustment for consistency in the face of ambiguity. There isn't a widely-used specific term for this exact scenario, but it could be described as "pattern alignment" or "pattern correction". The adjustment ensures that you follow the method applied across all other rows, even though there is flexibility in how Row L is calculated. It is a decision between being consistent with the established calculation pattern versus allowing a direct calculation for Row L.
-
Consistency Across Rows: If your primary goal is consistency across all rows, following the established pattern would generally be more acceptable. This ensures the calculation method is applied uniformly, even if it means slightly altering the result for "one hundred eleven" to fit the pattern of combining "one hundred ten" with "one."
-
Flexibility: However, if the direct calculation for "one hundred eleven" is equally valid and the purpose of Row L requires you to treat it as a unique entry, then that method is also justifiable. This would allow for the slight deviation, which might be necessary to reflect the distinct nature of "one hundred eleven."
If your goal is to maintain a clean and consistent pattern across all rows, you should likely prefer the pattern-based calculation which gives you 82 for Row L. This ensures that you’re following the same approach used in other rows, such as summing parts of compound words.
However, if there’s an analytical reason to treat "one hundred eleven" as distinct (and you're fine with explaining the minor deviation), the direct calculation (81) would also be acceptable.
So, the adjustment you're making is a pattern alignment to ensure consistency, and unless there’s a compelling reason to treat "one hundred eleven" as a separate case, it's generally more acceptable to prioritize the pattern-based approach for simplicity and clarity.
nswer
A
Q
uestion
This dilemma brings the idea of PEMDAS to mind. Would you say that the early pattern established in the matrix determines a sort of order of operations?
ChatGTP: Yes, that's an interesting way to look at it! The PEMDAS rule (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, Addition and Subtraction) defines the order of operations in arithmetic calculations to ensure consistency in how expressions are evaluated. In a similar way, the pattern you've established in the matrix can be seen as a form of "order of operations" that guides how the digital sums are calculated for each row, ensuring consistency in the process.
The early pattern you've set up for the matrix—specifically the rule that C2 = C1 + A2, C3 = C1 + A3, and so on—acts as a sort of procedural guideline for calculating the digital sums of words in subsequent rows. Just as PEMDAS defines a strict sequence of steps to follow when performing calculations, the pattern in your matrix defines a sequence for how to combine the digital sums of words in the matrix cells.
In other words:
-
Step 1: You start with the digital sums of words from Row 1 (such as "zero", "one", etc.).
-
Step 2: For Row 2 (B), you apply the pattern that B2 = B1 + A2, B3 = B1 + A3, and so on.
-
Step 3: You continue applying the pattern across each row, respecting the "order" you've established.
This pattern forms an "order of operations" in the sense that you must follow the sequence and logic in which numbers (or digital sums) are combined. The order ensures that each step in the matrix is consistent with the previous steps and contributes to the overall goal of calculating digital sums.
When you encounter the dilemma in Row L (whether to calculate "one hundred eleven" directly or by following the established pattern), it's like evaluating an exception to the rule, similar to how you might encounter parentheses or exponents in PEMDAS that alter the flow of operations. However, just like in PEMDAS where parentheses take precedence, following the established pattern in the matrix would take priority in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the rows.
So, Row L becomes an exception or special case that challenges the established "order of operations" you've set in the matrix. Deciding which method to use for Row L (whether the direct sum or the pattern-based sum) requires careful thought about whether maintaining consistency with the pattern is more important than applying a special calculation.
Yes, the early pattern you've established in the matrix does create a kind of order of operations for calculating the digital sums, and much like in PEMDAS, this order guides how each row is derived from the previous one. In this context, applying the pattern to Row L is akin to adhering to the standard rules of arithmetic in PEMDAS, ensuring that the matrix remains consistent and logical, even if there are edge cases like the one you're facing.
nswer
A
Q
uestion
Keep in mind, I did not establish the pattern early on, it presented itself due to the nature of calculating the digital sums of compound words. In other words, I did nothing beyond making the calculations and observing a pattern that showed up. Understand?
ChatGTP: Got it! I see now that the pattern you're working with emerged naturally as a result of calculating the digital sums for compound words, rather than being deliberately set up. This makes the situation even more interesting because the pattern itself is a reflection of how the digital sums behave when applied to compound numbers (like "twenty-one," "one hundred ten," etc.), and not something that was premeditated.
In this case, the "order of operations" is not something you explicitly defined, but rather a sequence that naturally arises based on how digital sums for compound words (or numbers) combine. When you calculated the digital sums for individual words and then observed that adding the digital sums of parts (e.g., "twenty" and "one" for "twenty-one") led to a consistent pattern (B2 = B1 + A2), the matrix itself revealed its own logic. This is an example of emergent behavior—the pattern became evident through repeated calculations rather than being imposed from the outset.
So, this pattern of combining parts (e.g., summing the digital sum of "twenty" with "one" to get the digital sum of "twenty-one") follows from how compound words are structured. The words themselves break down in a way that encourages this summing of parts, and over time, this became the recognized method of calculation for the matrix.
In mathematics and logic, emergent patterns are common, especially when analyzing systems where individual elements follow rules, but the overall structure reveals something greater or different than the sum of its parts. What’s happening in your case is an excellent example of this: as you calculate the digital sums for numbers and their words, you observe that combining the sums of compound words follows a natural, repetitive pattern.
Given that this pattern emerged organically, the dilemma in Row L is a natural consequence of the structure of the matrix. Since the pattern is a result of how digital sums for compound words behave, it's understandable that Row L would present a potential deviation. This is akin to an edge case in programming, where a certain exception or anomaly might pop up despite following a consistent rule.
Even though Row L's calculation (whether using "one hundred eleven" directly or using the "one hundred ten + one" approach) introduces ambiguity, the key is that the matrix's natural pattern still informs the decision.
-
Following the Emergent Pattern: Since the pattern that has naturally emerged from the calculation of the digital sums of compound words generally relies on adding the parts of compound numbers, following this pattern would mean summing "one hundred ten" and "one" as you did for the earlier rows, resulting in 82 for Row L. This aligns with the emergent structure of the matrix, where each new row is derived by adding the components of the previous rows.
-
Direct Calculation: On the other hand, calculating "one hundred eleven" as a single entity (rather than splitting it into parts) also follows the rules for calculating the digital sum of compound words, but it breaks the established pattern. If you do this, you get 81.
nswer
A
C
onclusion
ChatGTP: Since the pattern emerged naturally and is rooted in how compound words' digital sums work, it’s not arbitrary—it reflects the underlying logic of the system. Given this, staying consistent with the established pattern for Row L (summing "one hundred ten" and "one") would be the more acceptable choice, because it honors the emergent nature of the process that has already been established throughout the other rows. However, since both approaches (direct calculation and the pattern-based sum) are valid, your decision ultimately hinges on how closely you want to adhere to the pattern versus allowing for a slight deviation when a special case arises.
In essence, while the emergent pattern may not have been something you explicitly created, it functions like an "order of operations" in this matrix, and continuing to follow that pattern (even in the case of Row L) is likely the best approach for consistency.
Into the weeds
Menu
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. Matthew 7:7
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
1 John 4:1
Father Son Spirit
Solid Liquid Gas
Body Mind Soul
Ice Water Vapor
KINDRED STATES
At some point in every real discovery, things get more complicated. What started as a seemingly simple visual anomaly gives way to complexity, and the gravity of the spiritual implications should raise harder questions. This is that point. We’re moving past the historical pre-cursers now and into the details — no longer how it came together but what exactly was found and why it matters.
For 23 years, I’ve known this page would be necessary. That it would be the place where the difficult questions would have to be answered with clarity. Explanations are expected, and clear understanding would need to be supported by both solid evidence and spiritual perspective. From the start, I believed the discovery — the miracle — could stand on its own. It doesn’t need defending or decoration, only honest consideration. But I also knew this part would matter most.
Some will never accept surface patterns as enough. They’ll want to see the framework, the reasoning, the hard questions addressed — and this is where that work begins.
As you saw on the last page, we are faced the reality that more than one version of the matrix exists. That forces us to think critically about why are there six, and what they do they mean. We’re not just tracking numbers anymore — we’re looking at meaning, interpretation, and consistency. What makes one approach better than another? Can more than one be valid? What do we do when logic itself offers options instead of a single answer?
I'm confident that what I offer here will answer the technical questions. I have scrutinized it for years, and it holds up. You have never been expected to come away from this presentation with absolute certainty - but this page should get you closer.
Consider
Question everything
As you saw on the last page, where math for the matrix is double-checked and verified to the letter, several questions should be asked. Specifically, if the matrix displayed on Page G was a single image, why are there five others? There are two primary reasons for the multiple versions, and the rest of this page is devoted to wandering deep into the weeds to find the answers and explanations.
For starters, first consider the concept of matter. Matter exists in three states: solid, liquid, and gas. Each element can be transformed into any of these three forms without altering its fundamental properties. Similarly, the matrix can take on different forms while retaining its core integrity. To further clarify, think of mathematical fractions: though identical fractions can appear quite different, their values remain equivalent. This principle applies to the matrix as well.
For example, although the Alpha Sum matrix (Q-3) appears quite different from the original matrix (Q-2), they are, in essence, equivalent expressions. This is because the numbers in each matrix ultimately share the same Digital Root (Q-1). In a way, the Digital Root and Digital Sum matrices can be thought of as simplified versions of the grander Alpha Sum matrix, much like reducing fractions to simpler forms.
As I will demonstrate later on this page, there are also two distinct methods for calculating these sums, thanks only to the "teens." Therefore, the three expressions, combined with the two methods of calculation, result in a total of six distinct matrices.
3 Expressions
Same
truth
Digital Root
Digital Sum
Alpha Sum
Powers of three
First, let's explore the profound significance the number 3 holds in Christian theology and in the broader context of creation. Throughout Scripture, God has woven this number into the very fabric of His design for the world, revealing deep truths about His nature, His plan for redemption, and the structure of existence itself.
The use of the number 3 is not merely symbolic; it reflects the unity, balance, and completeness that underpins the entirety of creation. From the Triune nature of God to the design of humanity, the number 3 serves as a foundational principle through which God expresses His divine order and purpose.
The most central and significant use of the number 3 in Christian theology is the doctrine of the Trinity—the three-in-one nature of God. In the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, God reveals Himself as three distinct persons, yet perfectly unified as one divine essence. Each person of the Trinity has a unique role, yet they are inseparable from one another. The Father is the source, the Creator, and the eternal origin. The Son, Jesus Christ, is the manifestation of God in the world—God made flesh—who reveals His nature through His life, death, and resurrection. The Holy Spirit is the active presence of God in the world, guiding, comforting, and empowering believers.
The existence of the Trinity illustrates that unity can exist in diversity, with three distinct persons existing in perfect relationship with each other. This divine unity serves as a model for the harmony that God desires for His creation, pointing to a deeper spiritual truth about how God operates in the world.
In addition to the Trinity, the number 3 appears throughout the creation narrative, where it is foundational to the structure of the universe. The world is designed in a three-part structure: heavens, earth, and seas. The heavens represent the spiritual and divine realm, where God dwells; the earth symbolizes the physical, material world, which provides a home for life; and the seas, often symbolic of chaos, are given purpose and boundaries by God’s will. This threefold structure—spiritual, physical, and creative—reflects the comprehensive nature of God’s work in creation. It shows how God's will encompasses all aspects of reality, and that these elements work in harmony to support life and the flourishing of His creation.
Moreover, the significance of the number 3 is reflected in God’s redemptive plan for the world. The Bible reveals a three-act structure to salvation history: creation, fall, and redemption. In the beginning, God created the world and everything in it was good. This initial act of creation reveals God's intention for the world to reflect His glory, order, and harmony.
However, the fall of humanity into sin brought separation from God, disorder, and death into the world. But God's grace was not absent in the face of this darkness; He initiated a plan for redemption. Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God restored the broken relationship between Himself and humanity, bringing hope and renewal. This triadic structure of creation, fall, and redemption mirrors the comprehensive and complete nature of God’s redemptive work—a work that is marked by divine wisdom and purpose.
The life of Jesus, central to God's work of salvation, further underscores the importance of the number 3. Not only was Jesus crucified and resurrected after being in the tomb for three days, but His time in the wilderness also involved three distinct temptations by the devil, which He overcame through the truth of Scripture. These instances reflect how God's redemptive plan unfolds in patterns of completeness and transformation.
Sacrifice
Jesus' three-day death and resurrection symbolize the ultimate victory over death and sin, while the three temptations and Jesus' responses highlight His victory over the forces of evil, making clear that His mission was one of divine authority and fulfillment of God’s will.
Scripture also makes use of the number 3 in key moments of personal restoration and divine revelation. For example, when Peter denied Jesus three times, Jesus restored him in a threefold conversation asking, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). This three-part interaction symbolizes the fullness of Peter's forgiveness and the complete restoration of his relationship with Jesus.
In the Old Testament, the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob form the foundational structure of Israel, representing the three key figures through whom God established His covenant with His people. The repeated appearance of the number 3 in these significant moments of Scripture reveals the depth of divine intention behind God's actions in history.
The life of human beings, created in the image of God, also reflects the significance of the number 3. Humans are made as mind, body and soul (or body, soul, and spirit in Christian theology), each part representing a distinct yet integral aspect of the person. This threefold nature of humanity mirrors the triune nature of God, showing how creation reflects the divine image in its own structure.
Finally, the number 3 appears in the core Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love. These virtues are seen as foundational to the Christian life, guiding believers in their relationship with God and others. Faith connects believers to God and His promises, hope gives believers the assurance of God’s future work, and love reflects the very heart of God's nature, which is ultimately expressed in the life of Jesus. These three virtues encapsulate the essence of Christian discipleship and show how God’s plan for humanity is one of transformation and relational wholeness.
In conclusion, the number 3 is not just a number in Scripture—it is a key to understanding the divine order, structure, and purpose of creation. From the Triune nature of God to the structure of the universe, to the redemption of humanity through Jesus Christ, the number 3 represents completeness, harmony, and divine purpose. Through the use of the number 3, God reveals the fullness of His plan, showing how the diverse aspects of His creation—whether they be divine persons, physical realities, or human virtues—work together in unity to fulfill His will. In God's design, the number 3 is not arbitrary, but reflects the perfect balance and order that characterize the Creator and His work in the world.
Service
Glory
Again, as you travel back and forth between this page and the last, you may start to wonder if the original Hypothesis of this experiment was tinkered with, maybe even violated! In fact however, it was built upon, expanded and yes, even revised because it called to be so.
At the heart of scientific exploration is the absolute need to consider and include all data, regardless of its effect on outcome. Therefore, in data analysis or research, it is not uncommon for initial hypotheses to evolve as new patterns or insights emerge. This process is often referred to as "adaptive hypothesis testing" or "hypothesis revision." It involves adjusting the original hypothesis based on the data being collected, especially when unexpected trends or outcomes appear in the early stages of analysis.
At the beginning of a study, a hypothesis is typically formed—an educated guess or prediction about how variables might be related or what results are expected. However, as more data is collected, patterns, inconsistencies, or new variables might surface that were not anticipated in the original hypothesis. These unexpected findings can suggest that initial assumptions were incomplete or incorrect. In such cases, rather than adhering strictly to the original hypothesis, the scientific and analytical process encourages revising it in response to the new evidence.
This revision can take various forms. The scope of the original hypothesis might be narrowed, broadened to incorporate new insights, or the direction of the study may be shifted entirely. The key aspect is that the hypothesis becomes dynamic and responsive. The following sections will continue to build on the intricacies and dynamics of the discovery, as well as its divine origins.
"Nevertheless, not
my will, but
yours, be
done."
Luke 22:42 ESV*
"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Luke 12:48
Right
of way
"I instruct you in the way of wisdom and lead you along straight paths. When you walk, your steps will not be hampered; when you run, you will not stumble."
Proverbs 4:11-12
Calculating the first few rows of the matrix is a straightforward process as each number (0-19) is represented by, or named with a single word (zero - nineteen).
From there, compound words are used to represent larger numbers such as twenty-one, twenty-two, or forty-five, sixty-two and so on, with the hyphen linking the two words. The hyphen is the link just as in compound adjectives like "fast-paced," creating a single unit of meaning. It doesn't take long to see the shortcut here.
In the examples below, the Digital Sum of "twenty-six" is easily calculated by adding the DS of "twenty" with the DS of "six" (26 + 16 = 42). Likewise the Digital Sum of "eighty-eight" equals the DS of "eighty" plus the DS of "eight" (38 + 31 = 69). This observation can be labeled a shortcut, but it is in fact a pattern, generally referred to as an "emergent pattern." Much like the Multiplication Table we all used in grade school, follow the X axis until it intersects the Y axis to find the Digital Sum in question.
1. The shortcut
2. Troubled Teens
The difference in how we write and say numbers like eleven through nineteen compared to twenty through twenty-nine comes from the evolution of the English language and its roots in various linguistic traditions.
Numbers eleven and twelve, for instance, have unique origins in Old English, stemming from endleofan (meaning "one left" after ten) and twelf (meaning "two left" after ten). These words were formed before the more systematic pattern of "tens and ones" was established in later numbers. The suffix "-teen" in thirteen through nineteen comes from the Old English -tien, meaning "ten more," which provides a partial pattern.
However, this early numerical system doesn't align perfectly with the clearer structure seen in numbers like twenty-one, twenty-two, and beyond, which later adopted a more logical "base-ten" construction influenced by other languages and evolving grammar rules. Essentially, the irregularity between eleven through nineteen and higher numbers is a result of historical development rather than intentional design.
Once we calculate "one hundred ten" we reach a fork in the road, so to speak at "one hundred eleven." The shortcut that has been used in the previous 9 rows at first appears to be no longer relevant or applicable. In actuality, there is a choice to be made. The rest of this particular row can be calculated in one of two ways now. First, is the choice to calculate the digital sum for "one hundred eleven" exactly as written and spoken which will be referred to as Direct Calculation from here on.
Secondly, the Column Rule that was established earlier can continue to be used by calculating the Digital Sum of "one hundred eleven" as "one hundred ten + one." The day I discovered the miracle in the matrix, I was using a pen and piece of graph paper to record the data. Even on a calculator, it was a tedious process. When I discovered the compound-word "shortcut" it was a welcomed relief.... until I reached 111. I chose the Column Rule, honestly, because it was easier. When the dust settled days later, I returned to apply the Direct Calculation to this row. As soon as I saw the difference at 114 and 115, I knew I had found what would might be the biggest objection from future critics.
Mixed signals
"For we live by faith, not by sight."
2 Corintians 5:7
3. Fork in the road
"This is what the Lord says: ‘Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.'"
Jeremiah 6:16
Column Rule - Q2
Using the Column Rule to calculate the Digital Sums of the number names results in only one "exception" to the vertical anomaly. This reproduces the crucifixion cross and that single exception - representing sign placed above Christ's head.
By using Direct Calculation, the exception noted at the top of the matrix will obviously repeat every time "fourteen" and "fifteen" are calculated as in "one hundred fourteen" and "one hundred fifteen," as seen above.
Direct Calculation - Q5
- OR -
Stop and consider
In both mathematics and science, creating standardized rules is essential to ensuring consistency and clarity. Just like how rules in any system—whether it’s grammar, language, or measurement—help us communicate effectively, mathematicians establish rules to ensure that calculations are carried out in the same way by everyone. Without standardized rules, people could interpret and solve problems differently, leading to confusion and inconsistency, as in this equation:
3³×(22-20)+4÷2-8=
PEMDAS, short for Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, and Subtraction, was created to establish a standardized order for performing mathematical operations. Without such a system, solving equations could result in inconsistencies and confusion, as different people might interpret the sequence of operations differently.
This rule organizes operations by priority, ensuring parentheses and exponents are handled before moving on to multiplication, division, addition, and subtraction. PEMDAS has since become an essential foundation for learning and working with mathematics, ensuring consistency and eliminating ambiguity in mathematical problem-solving.
Mathematicians realized the need for a universal rule to ensure clarity and accuracy in complex calculations. By introducing PEMDAS, they provided a logical framework that helps everyone achieve the same result when solving the same equation. As I studied the matrices, I began to realize that selecting either the Column Rule or the Direct Calculation method seemed like a subjective choice. Technically, either method appears legitimate. PEMDAS reminded me that in mathematics, sometimes the order of operations needs to be established logically.
4. Order of Operations
Tap here
for the
correct answer
P
E
M
D
A
S
-
22-20=2
-
3³=27
-
27×2=54
-
4÷2= 2
-
54+2=56
-
56-8=
48
The correct answer is 48! Without PEMDAS there are several possible answers to this equation including the following:
40, 12 , 17, 4, 33, and 21
"But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way."
1 Corinthians 14:40
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Matthew 5:17
5. The merge
Merging onto a highway isn’t passive — it takes timing, patience, and discipline. You have to know your speed, anticipate the traffic, and slip into a system already moving faster than you. It takes more than just a turn signal, it takes skill. And when you try to force your way in, or worse, if the traffic resists you— the whole process can turn chaotic.
That’s exactly what happened when Jesus entered history. The Law of the Old Testament was already in motion with centuries of commandments, customs, and commentary, barreling down the road like an eighteen-wheeler. Enter Jesus, on the back of a donkey. He came to merge — not to sidetrack, but to fulfill their journey. But instead of easing His arrival, the religious gatekeepers reacted with something like road rage. They closed ranks and refused to yield. In the end, rather than accept his arrival, they ran Him off the road entirely, straight to a Roman cross.
So here we are, with a decision to make? We can see two choices, and select one over the other. Or we can try to merge two aspects of a broader narrative.
On one hand, the Column Rule offers a clean, symmetrically flawless structure — an unmistakable mirror of the cross Christ died on. On the other, if we strictly enforce my original Hypothesis, a second exception appears near the bottom of the vertical pattern. At first glance, it could seem to undermine the entire discovery. After all, rules are rules… right?
This is the kind of moment where critics might lean in, ready to dismiss the matrix as flawed, or worse, manipulated. They’ll point to that second exception and use it to question the integrity of the whole structure.
That’s exactly why the foundation had to be so carefully laid: from the crucifixion and the historical context, to probability, to the roots of writing systems, linguistic evolution and nuance, and to the symbolism of the cross. None of this was arbitrary. It was part of a deeper plan — one that began on a hill called Golgotha.
But context and rules aside, if we are being intellectually honest we must remember again, that statistically and logically, nothing should have been found in this grouping of words. Whether we are talking about a lone matrix, or 6 matrices, or even 100, the fact that even one of them gives us the unmistakable reflection of Christ's cross and its sign, defies all odds and cannot be downplayed.
As I considered all of this further, it dawned on me.
The Law was complex. Hundreds of commandments, dietary codes, ceremonial washings. The religious elite examined every detail, convinced that righteousness came from mastering them all. However, Jesus didn’t discard the Law. He fulfilled it. In His own words, He said that every “jot and tittle” still mattered.
My original hypothesis could be thought of as the Law of my experiment, painstakingly detailed, one word, one number, and one sum at a time. As I used my “shortcut,” on that winter morning, I never imagined the challenge it would present when I arrived at that twelfth row. I had a choice just like the Pharisees had when Jesus arrived. I could reject the Column Rule as it did not meet the letter of my law (hypothesis). Or I could merge with the unexpected and be forever changed by it.
Some will dismiss the discovery saying, “It skips steps or it’s flawed.” But the Column Rule isn’t flawed any more than Jesus was flawed. The other 5 matrices you saw on the last page are not cannon fodder. They are bonus material from an unmistakable miracle of God.
The religious leaders of Jesus’ day clung to the details of the Law, convinced the Messiah would follow a script they had written in their heads. But He didn’t arrive as they expected. He came not with power, but with purpose — not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He simplified what they had complicated, revealing that the heart of the Law wasn’t about ritual, but relationship.
The Law was never the point. It was a path, meant to lead to something greater. So was my Hypothesis. It pointed to what scientists call an emergent pattern, where the real discovery begins.
The shortcut offered by the use of Column Rule could be likened to the shortcut Jesus offered concerning the Law; “Love the Lord your God… and love your neighbor.” Two commands. Everything else hangs on them. He offered relief from the details—an easier way.
In science, unexpected results don’t automatically invalidate a hypothesis — they often refine it. From Newton to Einstein, the story of discovery is one of revision. Change doesn’t mean failure — it means faithfulness to the process.
In that same spirit, the Column Rule didn’t erase the process — it fulfilled it. It didn’t ignore the work of direct calculation — it merged with it and showed the way forward. As I sat with my calculator all those years ago, I saw it firsthand: the math for “twenty-one” didn’t need to be redone. The math for “twenty” and “one” had already been solved. It was all there — already working together.
The Pharisees missed their Messiah. He didn’t check every box they expected. They rejected how He came, why He came and who He claimed to be. Be sure to examine all the evidence of this discovery for yourself. Don’t let modern-day Pharisees (from science, math or even theology) influence you. Open your mind and make your own decisions. Open your heart and come to your own conclusions.
The next section examines if this so-called emergent pattern in the matrix is justifiable. Moreover, it answers whether or not the Column Rule carries more weight, scientifically and mathematically, than Direct Calculation.
* Scripture quotation marked above ESV is from the ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Columns Rule
A
nother chat
Knowing the potential objections to the two different methods for calculation, I prayed to God, and then turned to AI again for some clarity on the use of the emergent pattern that I call the Column Rule. This has been shortened here for brevity, but the answers are verbatim.
Please note: AI can, and often does make mistakes. I have done my best to measure the AI responses in this chat. I believe they are fact-based and reliable, but I also make mistakes.
Q
uestion
Imagine a matrix measuring 10 columns by 14 rows. Let's label the columns 1-10 and the rows A-N.
First, data is gathered or calculated for each cell in the top row. After inputting the data in the second row (B), I noticed that B2 = B1+A2, and then B3 = B1+A3, and so on the rest of Row-B. This is the same for every row except Row-L, including the remaining Rows M-N. In Row-L I can follow the pattern established in all the other rows so it remains consistent, but in order to do so, it changes how the data was gathered for Row-L slightly.
It can be argued that either result for Row-L is allowable and correct. Is there a term for this adjustment? If both results for Row-L are justifiable, would it be more acceptable to give preference or priority to the pattern already established by the other rows?
ChatGTP: The situation you're describing involves a pattern modification or pattern adjustment to your matrix, particularly in the case of Row-L. When you deviate slightly from the established pattern, this could be referred to as a "pattern refinement" or "pattern adjustment," where you make small changes to the method of data gathering or calculations to maintain consistency with the overall structure.
If both results for Row-L are mathematically justifiable, this would fall under the concept of "acceptable variability" or "permissible deviation" within the data. In terms of terminology, you could describe it as a "flexible adjustment" or "variable solution," recognizing that the pattern allows for two equally valid interpretations of the data.
As for giving preference to the already established pattern, it would depend on the context and purpose of your analysis. Generally, when faced with a situation where multiple results are acceptable, it's often more reliable to prioritize consistency with the previously established pattern, especially if that pattern is based on robust mathematical principles or if the consistency improves the reliability of the data set. This approach ensures that the entire matrix follows a coherent structure, making the data more predictable and easier to interpret.
However, if the deviation in Row-L offers additional insight or results in a better fit to some underlying model, it could be reasonable to choose the alternate result. This decision would need to be justified based on the specific objectives of your experiment or analysis.
In summary, this adjustment could be called a "pattern refinement" or "pattern adjustment," and giving preference to the established pattern is typically advisable unless there's a compelling reason to deviate. The situation you're facing occurs when calculating "one hundred eleven". You have two ways to approach it:
-
Direct Calculation: Calculating "one hundred eleven" directly, treating it as a unique phrase, where:
"one hundred eleven" = "one" (16) + "hundred" (38) + "eleven" (27) → 16 + 38 + 27 = 81.
-
Pattern-Based Calculation: Following the established pattern where "one hundred eleven" is split into "one hundred ten" + "one", so you calculate:
"one hundred ten" = "one hundred" (54) + "ten" (12) → 54 + 12 = 66. Then add "one" = 16, so you get 82.
In Row L, you're at a crossroads. You're calculating the sum for "one hundred eleven", but you could calculate it directly or follow the pattern you've established by summing "one hundred ten" (66) and "one" (16).
-
Direct Calculation: You get 81.
-
Pattern Calculation: You get 82.
This situation involves an adjustment for consistency in the face of ambiguity. There isn't a widely-used specific term for this exact scenario, but it could be described as "pattern alignment" or "pattern correction". The adjustment ensures that you follow the method applied across all other rows, even though there is flexibility in how Row L is calculated. It is a decision between being consistent with the established calculation pattern versus allowing a direct calculation for Row L.
-
Consistency Across Rows: If your primary goal is consistency across all rows, following the established pattern would generally be more acceptable. This ensures the calculation method is applied uniformly, even if it means slightly altering the result for "one hundred eleven" to fit the pattern of combining "one hundred ten" with "one."
-
Flexibility: However, if the direct calculation for "one hundred eleven" is equally valid and the purpose of Row L requires you to treat it as a unique entry, then that method is also justifiable. This would allow for the slight deviation, which might be necessary to reflect the distinct nature of "one hundred eleven."
If your goal is to maintain a clean and consistent pattern across all rows, you should likely prefer the pattern-based calculation which gives you 82 for Row L. This ensures that you’re following the same approach used in other rows, such as summing parts of compound words.
However, if there’s an analytical reason to treat "one hundred eleven" as distinct (and you're fine with explaining the minor deviation), the direct calculation (81) would also be acceptable.
So, the adjustment you're making is a pattern alignment to ensure consistency, and unless there’s a compelling reason to treat "one hundred eleven" as a separate case, it's generally more acceptable to prioritize the pattern-based approach for simplicity and clarity.
nswer
A
Q
uestion
This dilemma brings the idea of PEMDAS to mind. Would you say that the early pattern established in the matrix determines a sort of order of operations?
ChatGTP: Yes, that's an interesting way to look at it! The PEMDAS rule (Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication and Division, Addition and Subtraction) defines the order of operations in arithmetic calculations to ensure consistency in how expressions are evaluated.
In a similar way, the pattern you've established in the matrix can be seen as a form of "order of operations" that guides how the digital sums are calculated for each row, ensuring consistency in the process.
The early pattern you've set up for the matrix—specifically the rule that C2 = C1 + A2, C3 = C1 + A3, and so on—acts as a sort of procedural guideline for calculating the digital sums of words in subsequent rows.
Just as PEMDAS defines a strict sequence of steps to follow when performing calculations, the pattern in your matrix defines a sequence for how to combine the digital sums of words in the matrix cells.
In other words:
Step 1: You start with the digital sums of words from Row 1 (such as "zero", "one", etc.).
Step 2: For Row 2 (B), you apply the pattern that B2 = B1 + A2, B3 = B1 + A3, and so on.
Step 3: You continue applying the pattern across each row, respecting the "order" you've established.
This pattern forms an "order of operations" in the sense that you must follow the sequence and logic in which numbers (or digital sums) are combined. The order ensures that each step in the matrix is consistent with the previous steps and contributes to the overall goal of calculating digital sums.
When you encounter the dilemma in Row L (whether to calculate "one hundred eleven" directly or by following the established pattern), it's like evaluating an exception to the rule, similar to how you might encounter parentheses or exponents in PEMDAS that alter the flow of operations. However, just like in PEMDAS where parentheses take precedence, following the established pattern in the matrix would take priority in order to maintain consistency with the rest of the rows.
So, Row L becomes an exception or special case that challenges the established "order of operations" you've set in the matrix. Deciding which method to use for Row L (whether the direct sum or the pattern-based sum) requires careful thought about whether maintaining consistency with the pattern is more important than applying a special calculation.
Yes, the early pattern you've established in the matrix does create a kind of order of operations for calculating the digital sums, and much like in PEMDAS, this order guides how each row is derived from the previous one. In this context, applying the pattern to Row L is akin to adhering to the standard rules of arithmetic in PEMDAS, ensuring that the matrix remains consistent and logical, even if there are edge cases like the one you're facing.
nswer
A
Q
uestion
Keep in mind, I did not establish the pattern early on, it presented itself due to the nature of calculating the digital sums of compound words. In other words, I did nothing beyond making the calculations and observing a pattern that showed up. Understand?
ChatGTP: Got it! I see now that the pattern you're working with emerged naturally as a result of calculating the digital sums for compound words, rather than being deliberately set up. This makes the situation even more interesting because the pattern itself is a reflection of how the digital sums behave when applied to compound numbers (like "twenty-one," "one hundred ten," etc.), and not something that was premeditated.
In this case, the "order of operations" is not something you explicitly defined, but rather a sequence that naturally arises based on how digital sums for compound words (or numbers) combine. When you calculated the digital sums for individual words and then observed that adding the digital sums of parts (e.g., "twenty" and "one" for "twenty-one") led to a consistent pattern (B2 = B1 + A2), the matrix itself revealed its own logic. This is an example of emergent behavior—the pattern became evident through repeated calculations rather than being imposed from the outset.
So, this pattern of combining parts (e.g., summing the digital sum of "twenty" with "one" to get the digital sum of "twenty-one") follows from how compound words are structured. The words themselves break down in a way that encourages this summing of parts, and over time, this became the recognized method of calculation for the matrix.
In mathematics and logic, emergent patterns are common, especially when analyzing systems where individual elements follow rules, but the overall structure reveals something greater or different than the sum of its parts.
What’s happening in your case is an excellent example of this: as you calculate the digital sums for numbers and their words, you observe that combining the sums of compound words follows a natural, repetitive pattern.
Given that this pattern emerged organically, the dilemma in Row L is a natural consequence of the structure of the matrix. Since the pattern is a result of how digital sums for compound words behave, it's understandable that Row L would present a potential deviation. This is akin to an edge case in programming, where a certain exception or anomaly might pop up despite following a consistent rule.
Even though Row L's calculation (whether using "one hundred eleven" directly or using the "one hundred ten + one" approach) introduces ambiguity, the key is that the matrix's natural pattern still informs the decision.
-
Following the Emergent Pattern: Since the pattern that has naturally emerged from the calculation of the digital sums of compound words generally relies on adding the parts of compound numbers, following this pattern would mean summing "one hundred ten" and "one" as you did for the earlier rows, resulting in 82 for Row L. This aligns with the emergent structure of the matrix, where each new row is derived by adding the components of the previous rows.
-
Direct Calculation: On the other hand, calculating "one hundred eleven" as a single entity (rather than splitting it into parts) also follows the rules for calculating the digital sum of compound words, but it breaks the established pattern. If you do this, you get 81.
nswer
A
C
onclusion
ChatGTP: Since the pattern emerged naturally and is rooted in how compound words' digital sums work, it’s not arbitrary—it reflects the underlying logic of the system.
Given this, staying consistent with the established pattern for Row L (summing "one hundred ten" and "one") would be the more acceptable choice, because it honors the emergent nature of the process that has already been established throughout the other rows.
However, since both approaches (direct calculation and the pattern-based sum) are valid, your decision ultimately hinges on how closely you want to adhere to the pattern versus allowing for a slight deviation when a special case arises.
In essence, while the emergent pattern may not have been something you explicitly created, it functions like an "order of operations" in this matrix, and continuing to follow that pattern (even in the case of Row L) is likely the best approach for consistency.
Into the weeds
