Squares

by Jud Pewther - 3/29/15 1:56 AM

If you like to see coincidences that confirm that gematria is a little better than random nonsense, consider these facts. Using the Ordinal system with the simple counting values A=1 to Z=26:
Square = 81 = 9x9 [A perfect square]
Squares = 100 = 10x10 [Another perfect square]

If you use the Sumerian Gematria method, you are just multiplying all the counting values by 6. So your results for these two words will be 6 times bigger:
Square = 486 = 6x81 = 6x9x9 [NOT a perfect square]
Squares = 600 = 6x100 = 6x10x10 [NOT a perfect square]
So Sumerian gematria messes up this neat little pattern of squares, and thus confesses its ignorance.

Moving on the method called English Gematria at this site, where we are imitating ancient Hebrew and Greek, using A=1 to Z=800:
Square = 576 = 24x24 [A perfect square!]
Squares = 676 = 26x26 [Another perfect square!]

And since the squares are bigger numbers than the ones found with the Ordinal method, they are more spread out, and less likely to occur by random chance. Not only that, but there is a hidden pattern here, where the sum of two squares is equal to a square:
Square + S = Squares
576 + 100 = 676 [S=100 in this system.]
24x24 + 10x10 = 26x26
If you remember the Pythagorean theorem from high school math, these squares correspond to a right triangle with sides of 24 and 10, and a hypotenuse of 26.

Together, these results suggest that English Gematria and Ordinal gematria, the first two methods in the calculator at this site, are truthful methods. But the third method of Sumerian Gematria (called English Gematria at Gematrix) is junk. Again, Sumerian Gematria just inflates all the numbers of Ordinal gematria by a factor of 6, so that everything looks very 'sixy'. It's an exercise in self-deception, like putting on rose colored glasses in order to see more roses.

1 Reply: Post a Reply