## Representing chemical formulas as a single number

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

Did anyone else think 'The Number 23' (film) when they read a few paragraphs into this? Maybe that's me seeing a patten where there is none.
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.
krogoth

Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

You do realise that precisely the same number will represent both an amphetemine and an over-the-counter decongestant don't you?

The Geoff

Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:22 am UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

The Geoff wrote:You do realise that precisely the same number will represent both an amphetemine and an over-the-counter decongestant don't you?

I wouldn't bet on what scratch123 does and does not realize. I wonder how long gmalivuk will humor him before locking this thread for pseudoscience.
ATCG wrote:
Tass wrote:Nice to see another person sharing my views of quantum mechanics. Use Occam's razor, cut out the wavefunction collapse.
I had to chuckle after reading this, then noticing your location. Surely you risk being burned at the stake as a heretic.

Tass

Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

Carlington (The Aussie) wrote:Gaseous hexavalent chromium, ozone and methane and all lethal to humans if inhaled. Obviously, the numbers are useful for telling us which gases are unsuited to replacing O2 for humans.

Methane is harmless when inhaled, it is only a problem when it displaces oxygen or when it forms a flammable mixture with air, while ozone is a toxic, strong oxidizer. Nothing can replace O2, whether it gives the same number under your scheme or not. These numbers are useless. This is just meaningless numerology.

Molecules are too complex to reduce to a single scalar number. For mathematical representations, you'd be better off looking to graph theory. Start with a list of all atoms in the molecule in some unambiguous order...ordered by atomic number (and nucleon count if you're handling different isotopes). Next list the distances between every pair of atoms, generating the pairs in a standard order from the first list...that should be enough information to allow bonds to be recognized (by specific ranges of distances between atoms, or an additional hint if needed to indicate bonding), as well as structural differences like different foldings. There's still chirality...define a coordinate system using three atoms of the molecule and encode symmetry-breaking hints using that coordinate system. Concatenate it all together and you get one big binary number that's practically worthless for direct analysis, but which can be interpreted to recreate a graph representation of the molecule which *is* useful, though only by techniques a lot more complicated than looking for numeric equality.

cjameshuff

Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:24 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

[i
eSOANEM wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I will settle for the same method producing equivalent results for other addictive drugs but I would be even more impressed if its application were to be shown to be broader by testing other compounds as gmalivuk suggests or maybe even some inorganic compounds/complexes.

Try it with methamphetamine C10H15N, then realize there are two different forms of methamphetamine, levo-methamphetamine and dextro-methamphetamine that different only in the direction the a-methyl group (it should be alpha-methyl but I don't know how to show greek letters on this board) is facing relative to the rest of the molecule. Both have the same formula, so both would produce the same number, but only the dextro isomer is an addictive stimulant, the levo isomer is just a nasal/sinus decongestant.
TychoMaudd

Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

TychoMaudd wrote:[i
eSOANEM wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I will settle for the same method producing equivalent results for other addictive drugs but I would be even more impressed if its application were to be shown to be broader by testing other compounds as gmalivuk suggests or maybe even some inorganic compounds/complexes.

Try it with methamphetamine C10H15N, then realize there are two different forms of methamphetamine, levo-methamphetamine and dextro-methamphetamine that different only in the direction the a-methyl group (it should be alpha-methyl but I don't know how to show greek letters on this board) is facing relative to the rest of the molecule. Both have the same formula, so both would produce the same number, but only the dextro isomer is an addictive stimulant, the levo isomer is just a nasal/sinus decongestant.

This is because the "stimulant" property of methamphetamine and nicotine is less a due of their chemical structures and more due to the chemical structures of various bits of animal neurons.

ahammel

Posts: 972
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

I have looked at some other chemical formulas and I could post a description for them as well but I am afraid it would just be called numerology again. I prefer to think of this as a connection between chemistry and number theory. Most descriptions I have came up with are much simpler than the ones for nicotine. The only one that is more complex is the one for cocaine. Maybe there is some sort of connection between the simplest description for a chemical and some other property of it such as its toxicity, taste, smell, or addictiveness.

I made some sounds/music based on the numbers (in the scratch programming language) in various chemical formulas as well. I showed it some people in real life and they were impressed by it. I would post it here but all the file hosting sites I know of shut down recently.

I have been thinking about extending this model to include electrons but I am not exactly sure how it would work. It should take into account shared electrons between atoms and the number of electrons in the outer shell. It would be helpful if I had a number to represent the difference in importance (not the difference in electrons) between the electrons in the inner and outer shells. The number 1836 should be important as well because it represents the difference in mass (multiplied) between protons and electrons (ratio).
scratch123

Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:Maybe there is some sort of connection between the simplest description for a chemical and some other property of it such as its toxicity, taste, smell, or addictiveness.
There isn't. Examples have already been given for chemicals that have the same formula (and thus the same number by any numerological system that gets the number from the chemical formula alone), but have very different physiological properties when taken into the body.

I made some sounds/music based on the numbers (in the scratch programming language) in various chemical formulas as well. I showed it some people in real life and they were impressed by it. I would post it here but all the file hosting sites I know of shut down recently.
Experimental music like this can be cool, but it doesn't give any deeper insight into the underlying chemistry, even if it does impress your friends.
In the future, there will be a global network of billions of adding machines.... One of the primary uses of this network will be to transport moving pictures of lesbian sex by pretending they are made out of numbers.
Spoiler:
gmss1 gmss2

gmalivuk
Archduke Vendredi of Skellington the Third, Esquire

Posts: 19277
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here, There, Everywhere (near Boston, anyway)

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:Most descriptions I have came up with are much simpler than the ones for nicotine.

So the process you followed wasn't the exact same? Then I'm afraid you are definitely searching for a pattern which does not exist. If the pattern were there, your exact method should produce equivalent results in various compounds, it doesn't therefore it isn't correct; science!
Gear wrote:I'm not sure if it would be possible to constantly eat enough chocolate to maintain raptor toxicity without killing oneself.

eSOANEM

Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantebrycge

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

I have been working on this theory a bit more and here is what I came up with:

Note: I am no longer counting hydrogen (1) in these sets since 1 is the identity element for multiplication.

cocaine = c17h21n1o4 = (6, 17, 21, 7, 8, 4)
factors (2 * 3 = 6, 7 * 3 = 21, 2^3 = 8, 2 * 2 = 4)

17 = 7th prime number and 7 is the 4th prime number, sum of the first 4 primes (2 + 3 + 5 + 7)
21 = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 (6 terms), 6th fibonacci number when ignoring 1 and 0, 6th trianglular number
7 = 4th prime number, 4th odd number

6 appears in 21 (3 times)
4 appears in 17 and 7 (2 times each) (goto *1)
3 * 2 = 6, the 6 references the 6 2 lines up (goto *1)

7 is in the 4th position in the set. The connection between 4 and 7 is explained above.

*1. 4 appears in the 6th position in the set.

Start with 4 and multiply it by 2 to get 8. The reason for the multiplication by 2 is because 2 is a factor of both 6 and 4. Now go back one position in the set and put 8 there. The reason we are going backwards instead of forwards is to fill the gap that would otherwise be there. 8 is equal to 2^3 which is similar to 6 since it is equal to 2 * 3.

vitamin k = c31h46o2 = (6, 31, 46, 8, 2)

First generate the set of centered triangular numbers (this set is related to 6 since its factors 3 and 2 appear in it). This set is generated by (3n^2 + 3n + 2)/2 starting with n = 1. This generates the set (4, 10, 19, 31, 46). The 4 tells you to move to the 4th position of the set which gets you to 31 which is a member of the vitamin k set. Since 2 * 2 = 4 the 2's tell you to go to the second position in this set. This gets you to 10 which can be broken down into 2 * 5. The 2 just gets you back where you started but the 5 gets you to the 5th member of the set which is 46. This also appears in the vitamin k set. Now the only member left is 19. The number 19 is the 8th prime number which gets you the 8 in the vitamin k set. Now take the 8 and divide by 4 (the first centered trianglar number) to get 2.

glucose = c6h12o6 = (6, 6, 12, 8, 6)
factors = (2 * 3 = 6, 2 * 3 = 6) (2 * 2 * 3 = 12)

When you put the 2's and 3's from both sets in one to one correspondance that just leaves one 3 left. This 3 represents the fact you are performing 3 one to one correspondances. Now lets reuse the 2's and 3's from the first factor set. The fact that 2^3 = 8 and 2 * 3 = 6 generates the last 2 members of the set.

carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen

These are the 3 most important atoms in organic chemistry so I decided to analyze them. They have atomic numbers 6, 7, and 8. Since 2 * 3 = 6 and 2^3 = 8 carbon represents multiplication and oxygen represents exponation. Nitrogen is a bit harder to classify. It represents addition since (2 + 2 + 3) = 7. The members of this set can be used to describe the set itself. There are two 2's and the set has 3 members. The number 7 is the 4th prime and 4th odd number. This is significant because nitrogen often appears as the 4th member of the set in many chemical formulas.

atoms

(p * n(e/2^11 + 1)) + el/1836
p = number of protons
n = number of neutrons
el = number of electrons
e = the math constant e

I was trying to come up with a way to represent atoms as a single number and this is what I came up with. First I multiplied protons and neutrons since the are combined at the center of the atom. Then I needed a way to represent the difference between a proton and neutron. To do this I took the ratio of the masses between the 2. This is apporoximately equal to 1.0013. Now a needed a way to connect this to some concept in math. I had a theory that neutrons may be some way related to the exponential function since they split and create exponential copies of themselves during nuclear reactions. To test this theory I looked into the constant e since it is related to this function. Sure enough I found that the neutron/proton ratio (1.0013) is approximately equal to e/2^11. Also in the case on hydrogen which has no neutrons make sure to leave this part of the formula out (n(e/2^11)). The next part of the formula deals with electrons. Addition represents movement so thats why I am adding instead of multiplying. The number 1836 represents the ratio between protons and electrons and the reason I am dividing is because electrons are smaller than protons.

To sum things up electrons represent addition since they are moving and not physically connected to one another. Protons represent multiplication since they are combined together. Neutrons represent exponation because of how they behave in nuclear reactions. This also explains why the atom has the structure that it does and not some other structure. The reason for its structure is because it is the simplest way to physically represent addition, multiplication, and exponation all in one structure.
scratch123

Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote: Sure enough I found that the neutron/proton ratio (1.0013) is approximately equal to e/2^11.

Never minding everything else for the time being (because what is that I don't even ), the above quote seems to be a extremely generous aproximation.

e is roughly 3, and 2^2 is 4, so e/2^2 is roughly 0.75, which is already a pretty poor aproximation. Diving that by 1/(2^9) (in order to get e/2^11) is going to make things significantly worse.

Dopefish

Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 5:46 am UTC
Location: The Well of Wishes

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

The only thing I could think of coming up with anywhere near related to these thoughts, comes from the activation energy of chemicals, but this is always measured in relation to what other chems you are reacting them with.
CO(g) + NO2(g) ----> CO2(g) + NO(g)
this reactions energy would be more informative.(and I expect many of the reactions to have their own reaction energies)
The other idea would quantifying spectroscopy results though I don't know much about it.
They are both based on the same idea though and could possibly give atoms their own ID numbers and make more sense to me than arbitrarily multiplying and adding number.

Edit:Even then reaction energy is only about reactive energy of the ion pairs. Probably best to work from spectroscopy?
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.
krogoth

Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123, instead of spending all this time trying to analyse molecules and atoms with an arbitrary system that you try to adjust to fit things already known, why not take a look at mathematical descriptions that already have been shown to represent them very well? Quantum theory provides a very good description of everything from the structure to the interaction of both the nucleus and of electron orbitals. You seem to be trying to developing your own new theory without any understanding of well developed theories that have been explored and used to not only describe both previously known effects and phenomenon to a startling degree of accuracy, but also shown to predict things that have shown be to true. I would suggest first educating yourself on what's already out there first, and then see if your ideas can be used to not only describe what's known already to the same or better degree of accuracy but also can be used to predict phenomenon that doesn't fit any current theories. If you can do that, maybe you'll be taken seriously on your ideas, instead of just having them dismissed as numerology.

Oh and to pick at a very specific thing in your post, of course most organic molecules start with the number 6 in your scheme when your ignore hydrogen because all organic molecules by definition contain carbon, atomic number 6, which doesn't commonly form bonds with lighter elements other than hydrogen. But even so there are exceptions, I've personally worked with a family of molecules called subphthalocyanines, which contain boron, and by your system would start with the number 5, despite being an organic molecule.

*edit: To pick at something else, e/2^11 is approximately 0.0013, but beyond that level of precision it's not accurate. It's like saying the numbers 22 and 7 are special to trigonometry and geometry because 22/7 approximately equal to pi.
Last edited by TychoMaudd on Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:23 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
TychoMaudd

Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:[neutrons] split and create exponential copies of themselves during nuclear reactions.

This doesn't happen. Neutrons are emitted from fission reactions but only by splitting off from the nucleus. New ones are not created (and if they are, it's a conversion of proton->neutron+positron+electron neutrino so a 1-1 hadron conversion), absolutely no exponential splitting going on.
Gear wrote:I'm not sure if it would be possible to constantly eat enough chocolate to maintain raptor toxicity without killing oneself.

eSOANEM

Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantebrycge

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:I was trying to come up with a way to represent atoms as a single number
I've got one, see if you can spot the pattern.
H = 1
He = 2
Li = 3
Be = 4
B = 5
C = 6
N = 7
O = 8
F = 9
Ne = 10
PlasticineGuy

Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:34 am UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

PlasticineGuy wrote:
scratch123 wrote:I was trying to come up with a way to represent atoms as a single number
I've got one, see if you can spot the pattern.
H = 1
He = 2
Li = 3
Be = 4
B = 5
C = 6
N = 7
O = 8
F = 9
Ne = 10

But that doesn't distinguish H from D and T.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

Sizik

Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

If your system works and isn't complete hogwash, I offer you this challenge:

Find a formula that we don't know about yet that your system shows should be an addictive drug. Synthesize this molecule. Try it. See if it's an addicting drug or deadly.

Note: I would recommend at least having someone check it for sanity before you try it, as otherwise you run a high risk of killing yourself. I don't want that to happen. I take no responsibility for any implementation of this plan or the effects which come from it.
cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:If it can't be done in an 80x24 terminal, it's not worth doing
Meem1029

Posts: 377
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 1:11 am UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

TychoMaudd wrote:scratch123, instead of spending all this time trying to analyse molecules and atoms with an arbitrary system that you try to adjust to fit things already known, why not take a look at mathematical descriptions that already have been shown to represent them very well? Quantum theory provides a very good description of everything from the structure to the interaction of both the nucleus and of electron orbitals. You seem to be trying to developing your own new theory without any understanding of well developed theories that have been explored and used to not only describe both previously known effects and phenomenon to a startling degree of accuracy, but also shown to predict things that have shown be to true. I would suggest first educating yourself on what's already out there first, and then see if your ideas can be used to not only describe what's known already to the same or better degree of accuracy but also can be used to predict phenomenon that doesn't fit any current theories. If you can do that, maybe you'll be taken seriously on your ideas, instead of just having them dismissed as numerology.

Oh and to pick at a very specific thing in your post, of course most organic molecules start with the number 6 in your scheme when your ignore hydrogen because all organic molecules by definition contain carbon, atomic number 6, which doesn't commonly form bonds with lighter elements other than hydrogen. But even so there are exceptions, I've personally worked with a family of molecules called subphthalocyanines, which contain boron, and by your system would start with the number 5, despite being an organic molecule.

*edit: To pick at something else, e/2^11 is approximately 0.0013, but beyond that level of precision it's not accurate. It's like saying the numbers 22 and 7 are special to trigonometry and geometry because 22/7 approximately equal to pi.

I think being accurate to 4 decimal places is pretty good. I also found a way to extend it to 8 that I will post later. I see nothing wrong with saying 22 and 7 are special because 22/7 is approximately equal to pi. It raises the question as to why those numbers approximate pi while most other numbers don't. I am sure some mathematician has wondered this and I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to this was already known among mathematicians. If it isn't already known (which I would find very surprising) I will look at that problem as well.

There is not much arbitrary about the system I am using because all I am doing is connecting some of the simplest concepts in number theory to chemistry and physics. I actually have looked at what has been discovered so far in physics and that was part of the inspiration for coming up with this theory. All of the advanced physics stuff seems to deal with matricies and group theory while not paying much attention to number theory. I am sure this is good for some problems but I want to go one step further. I want to explain where the numbers in the theories come from. I will post some more of the progress that I am making later.

I do recognize there are some problems with just multiplying numbers together and saying that all numbers with a similar number will have similar chemical properties. Its just too simple of a model to be accurate all the time. What I really need is to find chemicals that have similar chemical properties where the reason for there similar chemical properties is not known. I don't really know where to look though since wikipedia isn't much help for that kind of thing.

I know all molecules don't start with the number 6. The only reason I have been using them in my examples is because I happen to like many organic molecules. My theory works for inorganic molecules as well.

In order to show how all those separate theories for individual chemicals are related I am going to post the process to how I come up with them. First a take the factors of all of the numbers. Then I look up each number on wikipedia to see what sets the number belongs to. For example the most frequent one is the set of prime numbers. Then I look at the position it appears in each set and try to find a correspondance between the set position and the numbers in the chemical formula. For example lets say 12 appears in the chemical formula. Since it has the factors 3 and 4 it could refer to the 3rd or 4th prime number appearing in the chemical formula. It could also refer to another number having the factors 3 or 4 in it. This kind of has to do with the rule in chemistry where the number of atoms in a chemical tend to be in simple ratios. Think of this overall theory as a puzzle book (like crosswords) where the theory for each chemical is a specific solution to a puzzle in the book.
scratch123

Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

C3H6 is the same molecule as H6C3 but produces different numerical results. Why?

The Geoff

Posts: 91
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:22 am UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:I think being accurate to 4 decimal places is pretty good.
You have 4 decimal places of accuracy, but only two significant figures of precision. And you're saying this is significantly close to a number we know to more than two digits of precision.

Furthermore, you can multiply powers of e and powers of 2 together to get pretty close to infinitely many different numbers, but that doesn't mean they're terribly important. You want something close to pi? e^6/2^7 is pretty close, and I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to make up a story as to why.

EDIT: as confirmed in this thread, you can in fact get arbitrarily close to any real number just by multiplying together (possibly negative) integer powers of e and 2, along with an optional factor of -1. And in fact this relationship holds for any pair of numbers where the ratio of their logarithms is irrational.

There is not much arbitrary about the system I am using
Apart from pretty much everything about the system you're using, this is true.

Its just too simple of a model to be accurate all the time.
Yes, and a model as hit-or-miss as yours is what's known in the biz as a crap model.

"Look, I know that just writing 6:34 on this piece of paper is just too simple of a device to tell accurate time *all* the time, but twice every single day, it's perfectly accurate to infinity digits of precision! There's got to be something interesting there, right?"

Then I look up each number on wikipedia to see what sets the number belongs to. For example the most frequent one is the set of prime numbers. Then I look at the position it appears in each set and try to find a correspondance between the set position and the numbers in the chemical formula.
Every number belongs to infinitely many sets, and said sets can be constructed to have said number at any position we desire.

For example lets say 12 appears in the chemical formula. Since it has the factors 3 and 4 it could refer to the 3rd or 4th prime number appearing in the chemical formula. It could also refer to another number having the factors 3 or 4 in it.
This is what's technically referred to as "grasping at straws". Well, maybe not all that technically.

The human brain is fantastic at finding patterns, especially when said pattern could be literally anything and you'd still ascribe significance to it. It's like when something unexpected happens and someone asks, "Wow, what are the chances of that ever happening again?!" Sure, the chances of that exact event repeating itself might be vanishingly small, but the chances of something else happening that you find equally surprising are pretty much 100%.
In the future, there will be a global network of billions of adding machines.... One of the primary uses of this network will be to transport moving pictures of lesbian sex by pretending they are made out of numbers.
Spoiler:
gmss1 gmss2

gmalivuk
Archduke Vendredi of Skellington the Third, Esquire

Posts: 19277
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here, There, Everywhere (near Boston, anyway)

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:I see nothing wrong with saying 22 and 7 are special because 22/7 is approximately equal to pi. It raises the question as to why those numbers approximate pi while most other numbers don't. I am sure some mathematician has wondered this and I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to this was already known among mathematicians. If it isn't already known (which I would find very surprising) I will look at that problem as well.

There is nothing special about 22/7! 223/71 could also be used as an approximation as could 256/81 or 339/108, or 3927/1250, all which have had been used historically. Heck you could use 157/50, which is an approximation that I just made up now that equals 3.14. Even 3 could be used as an approximation if you don't care about accuracy too much and just want something that's easy to manipulate in your head. In fact there are an infinite number of approximations you could use! Nothing is special about those numbers, they are just approximations. If you want to see something special about numbers, e^(pi*i)+1=0 (I don't know how to make that look fancy on this board, any help with it would be appreciated) shows that there is a special relationship between the numbers e and pi.

scratch123 wrote:What I really need is to find chemicals that have similar chemical properties where the reason for there similar chemical properties is not known. I don't really know where to look though since wikipedia isn't much help for that kind of thing.

What you first need to do is show that chemicals with known similarities produce similar results with your hypothesis that fit consistently. You need to prove that it works and fits with what is already known before you use it explain something new. And good luck with trying to find chemicals that have similar properties where the reason for the similarities aren't known, even more so if you think you can describe them with a hypothesis that you've made up in a week with your apparent lack of knowledge about chemistry. People dedicate their entire lives and careers to do that, there is a reason why getting into chemical research requires years of undergrad and even more years of graduate study. Furthermore chemistry isn't exactly a new field, the reasons why a chemical exhibits specific properties is generally well known, most discoveries are made finding new properties that weren't previously known, new ways to use those properties, making new chemicals or new ways to make chemicals (to put it in a very small nut shell). And for any chemicals that do exhibit unexplained properties, simple multiplication and addition won't be enough to describe them, or I guarantee that someone else would have done so years ago.

scratch123 wrote:I know all molecules don't start with the number 6. The only reason I have been using them in my examples is because I happen to like many organic molecules. My theory works for inorganic molecules as well.

If you are to make such a bold claim, a single counterexample is all that's needed to prove it wrong. If you wanna count the subphthalocyanines as inorganic, there's still a wealth of other organoboranes that would all start with the number 5 with your hypothesis.

I am sorry if I am coming across as harsh here, but what you're trying to do feels like a mockery of chemistry. All your posts show that you don't even know the fundamentals of chemistry beyond the (very) little that a basic high school chemistry would provide. If you really want to solve problems in chemistry, please take the time to educate yourself more. If you were to take an even intro level chemistry 101/102 course, you would understand why your approach to this is fundamentally flawed.
Last edited by TychoMaudd on Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:26 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
TychoMaudd

Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

TychoMaudd wrote:
scratch123 wrote:I see nothing wrong with saying 22 and 7 are special because 22/7 is approximately equal to pi. It raises the question as to why those numbers approximate pi while most other numbers don't. I am sure some mathematician has wondered this and I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to this was already known among mathematicians. If it isn't already known (which I would find very surprising) I will look at that problem as well.

There is nothing special about 22/7! 223/71 could also be used as an approximation as could 256/81 or 339/108, or 3927/1250, all which have had been used historically. Heck you could use 157/50, which is an approximation that I just made up now that equals 3.14. Even 3 could be used as an approximation if you don't care about accuracy too much and just want something that's easy to manipulate in your head. In fact there are an infinite number of approximations you could use! Nothing is special about those numbers, they are just approximations. If you want to see something special about numbers, e^(pi*i)-1=0 (I don't know how to make that look fancy on this board, any help with it would be appreciated) shows that there is a special relationship between the numbers e and pi.

scratch123 wrote:What I really need is to find chemicals that have similar chemical properties where the reason for there similar chemical properties is not known. I don't really know where to look though since wikipedia isn't much help for that kind of thing.

What you first need to do is show that chemicals with known similarities produce similar results with your hypothesis that fit consistently. You need to prove that it works and fits with what is already known before you use it explain something new. And good luck with trying to find chemicals that have similar properties where the reason for the similarities aren't known, even more so if you think you can describe them with a hypothesis that you've made up in a week with your apparent lack of knowledge about chemistry. People dedicate their entire lives and careers to do that, there is a reason why getting into chemical research requires years of undergrad and even more years of graduate study. Furthermore chemistry isn't exactly a new field, the reasons why a chemical exhibits specific properties is generally well known, most discoveries are made finding new properties that weren't previously known, new ways to use those properties, making new chemicals or new ways to make chemicals (to put it in a very small nut shell). And for any chemicals that do exhibit unexplained properties, simple multiplication and addition won't be enough to describe them, or I guarantee that someone else would have done so years ago.

scratch123 wrote:I know all molecules don't start with the number 6. The only reason I have been using them in my examples is because I happen to like many organic molecules. My theory works for inorganic molecules as well.

If you are to make such a bold claim, a single counterexample is all that's needed to prove it wrong. If you wanna count the subphthalocyanines as inorganic, there's still a wealth of other organoboranes that would all start with the number 5 with your hypothesis.

I am sorry if I am coming across as harsh here, but what you're trying to do feels like a mockery of chemistry. All your posts show that you don't even know the fundamentals of chemistry beyond the (very) little that a basic high school chemistry would provide. If you really want to solve problems in chemistry, please take the time to educate yourself more. If you were to take an even intro level chemistry 101/102 course, you would understand why your approach to this is fundamentally flawed.

You are right that I need to learn more chemistry. Not all theories can make predictions. My theory is more of a descriptive theory that describes certain sets of numbers in a different way than just writing the numbers down. Even though a number can belong to a infinite number of sets many of these infinite sets are very similar to each other. For example the sets generated by 2x and the sets generated by 3x are similar because they can be generalized to ax. Many of these infinite sets also depend on the introduction of arbitrary numbers as part of functions that generate them. On the other hand if you focus on functions that don't use numbers you are left with much fewer sets. These sets are so important they are given their own name while many infinite sets are not.

The difference between 22/7 and those other numbers you listed is 22 and 7 are both smaller. Math is about simplicity and these 2 numbers are much simpler to describe. Also your post just raises the question as to why those numbers are approximations of pi while others are not. I am betting there is some underlying property that all those numbers have. I looked up some stuff about rational approximations of pi and found these 2 links: http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/BLOG/1999/0728_RATIONAL_PI/ and http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/BLOG/1999/072 ... rgence.txt . I guess this problem is pretty well understood after all.

I did some more work on my theory this time focusing on the atom:

The proton/neutron ratio is exactly 1.0013784188113242561504264537877 and e/2^11 is equal to 0.00132728564453125 when you take the first 4 decimal places of e. The first 4 digits are obviously the same so lets start at the last digit that is the same for both which is 3 and lets do this for the e/2^11 number. Start at 3 and move to the right 2 spaces. Now you are at 7 which is the same next digit in the proton/neutron ratio. Now move over 2 again. Again the 8's match up. Now move over 3. The 4's match up. Now move 4 and the 1's match up. This makes them equal to 8 decimal places which is a much better approximation than the previous approximation of 4.

One thing that was missing from my earlier theory was I didn't have a mathematical basis for 1836 so lets fix that problem. The number 1836 can be described as 6 + 1 = 7 * 4 = 28 + 1 = 29 * 4 = 116 - 1 = 115 * 4 = 460 - 1 = 459 * 4 = 1836. Now since 4 appears 4 times it leads you to think that the number 4 has something to do with electrons and it turns out that it does. The equation that describes how many electrons can occupy a shell is given by 2n^2. When the number 4 is plugged in it gives you 32 which is also the maximum number of electrons that can be in one shell. The +1 represents the positive electric field inside the electron and the -1 represents the negative electric field outside the electron that it generates.

There is also another way to describe 1836. You would think that since electrons go in a circular orbit they may be related to pi in some way. This is exactly what I found. I found that 6(pi)^5 = 1836. Since carbon is atomic number 6 this explains why carbon bonds to so many atoms. The 5th prime number is 11 which appears in e/2^11. Overall this makes my theory much stronger than it was before.
scratch123

Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:The proton/neutron ratio is exactly 1.0013784188113242561504264537877 and e/2^11 is equal to 0.00132728564453125 when you take the first 4 decimal places of e. The first 4 digits are obviously the same so lets start at the last digit that is the same for both which is 3 and lets do this for the e/2^11 number. Start at 3 and move to the right 2 spaces. Now you are at 7 which is the same next digit in the proton/neutron ratio. Now move over 2 again. Again the 8's match up. Now move over 3. The 4's match up. Now move 4 and the 1's match up. This makes them equal to 8 decimal places which is a much better approximation than the previous approximation of 4.

That is not a valid use of the word "equal".

I found that 6(pi)^5 = 1836.

Neither is this.

. . . since electrons go in a circular orbit . . .

No they don't.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

Sizik

Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:You are right that I need to learn more chemistry. Not all theories can make predictions. My theory is more of a descriptive theory that describes certain sets of numbers in a different way than just writing the numbers down.

If you can't make predictions then it is not a theory, just a hypothesis. If you can't make testable predictions it will never be a scientific theory as there is no way to verify your results. One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is that after you have a hypothesis you use it to make predictions and then see if your hypothesis stands up to experimental rigors.

scratch123 wrote:The difference between 22/7 and those other numbers you listed is 22 and 7 are both smaller. Math is about simplicity and these 2 numbers are much simpler to describe. Also your post just raises the question as to why those numbers are approximations of pi while others are not. I am betting there is some underlying property that all those numbers have. I looked up some stuff about rational approximations of pi and found these 2 links: http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/BLOG/1999/0728_RATIONAL_PI/ and http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/BLOG/1999/0728_RATIONAL_PI/fast_convergence.txt . I guess this problem is pretty well understood after all.

The numbers 22 and 7 are smaller because they are more inaccurate than the other approximations. By your logic, 3 is an even better approximation for pi because it is simpler! There is nothing special about these approximations, they are arbitrary numbers used to make the maths easier when you don't need precision, just a 'close enough' result. Not meaning to toot my own horn here, but finding approximations, and various computational solutions to pi was a past time I had in boring middle/high school classes. The topic is so well explored that I would see how long ago anything I came up with was discovered and nearly all were at least a hundred if not hundreds of years old.

scratch123 wrote:The proton/neutron ratio is exactly 1.0013784188113242561504264537877 and e/2^11 is equal to 0.00132728564453125 when you take the first 4 decimal places of e.

If you only use the first 4 digits of e, you limit the precision you can use for that ratio to 0.0013273 due to the lack of significant figures. (And if you argue otherwise, please google "significant figures") Any digits past that are meaningless since you cut your precision of e to get a result close enough to use 'hocus pokus' in an attempt to say they are equal (Hint: if they differ, or you need to limit the precision so they don't, then they aren't equal).

I don't know where you got that number for the proton/neutron mass ratio from since it has far more precision then I have ever seen. The NIST value for the proton/neutron mass ratio is 1.00137841917(45). If you'll notice that there are two digits in parathesis, these are the standard deviation in the last two digits of the value caused by the lack of accuracy in that precise of measurement. This means that there is a ~68% that the measurement falls between .00137841872 and .00137841962, so we do not have an exact value for the ratio.

scratch123 wrote:One thing that was missing from my earlier theory was I didn't have a mathematical basis for 1836 so lets fix that problem. The number 1836 can be described as 6 + 1 = 7 * 4 = 28 + 1 = 29 * 4 = 116 - 1 = 115 * 4 = 460 - 1 = 459 * 4 = 1836. Now since 4 appears 4 times it leads you to think that the number 4 has something to do with electrons and it turns out that it does. The equation that describes how many electrons can occupy a shell is given by 2n^2. When the number 4 is plugged in it gives you 32 which is also the maximum number of electrons that can be in one shell. The +1 represents the positive electric field inside the electron and the -1 represents the negative electric field outside the electron that it generates.

The number 4 does not have anything to do with describing electrons. Ignoring what one of my favorite professors would call 'mumbo jumbo' in there, 32 is not the maximum number of electrons that can fit into a shell. It's the number of electrons that can fit into the N shell. There is still a larger shell beyond that, the O shell, which holds 2*5^2 electrons. Any element with a number higher than 118 would start to fill that shell (there are several recent experiments that claimed to have synthesized such elements).

scratch123 wrote:There is also another way to describe 1836. You would think that since electrons go in a circular orbit they may be related to pi in some way. This is exactly what I found. I found that 6(pi)^5 = 1836. Since carbon is atomic number 6 this explains why carbon bonds to so many atoms. The 5th prime number is 11 which appears in e/2^11. Overall this makes my theory much stronger than it was before.

There are several things wrong with this:

The reason that carbon can form such a vast variety of chemicals is already explained very well with molecular orbital theory which is brushed on by even a basic university chemistry course.

The idea that electrons travel in circular orbits was disproven nearly a hundred years ago. The solution to the schrodinger equation for the simplest, most basic atoms and molecules was discovered in the twenties. It shows that not only do electrons not travel circular orbitals, but that the location, and motion of electrons bound to atoms can only be described in terms of probability.

As was stated before, since pi is irrational (and transcendental), you cannot say that 6(pi)^5=1836. If you really want to explore mathematics, explore the fact that pi is transcendental, no matter how you add, multiply or take powers/roots of rational numbers in a finite number of steps, you'll never exactly solve for pi. Similarly, if you add, multiply, raise to a power or take a root of pi using rational numbers, you'll never get a rational number.

Please, please educate yourself before trying to develop your own hypothesis about chemistry. Failing to do so is an affront to chemists, physicists and mathematicians everywhere and only serves to show your ignorance in the subject matter.
Last edited by TychoMaudd on Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:47 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
TychoMaudd

Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

Or maybe get a high school textbook on any science subject.
First chapter. The scientific method.
addams wrote: There is no such thing as an Unbiased Jury.
curtis95112

Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

curtis95112 wrote:Or maybe get a high school textbook on any science subject.
First chapter. The scientific method.

Ah, yes. What a wonderful world it would be if the first chapter in any science textbook explained the scientific method.
ATCG wrote:
Tass wrote:Nice to see another person sharing my views of quantum mechanics. Use Occam's razor, cut out the wavefunction collapse.
I had to chuckle after reading this, then noticing your location. Surely you risk being burned at the stake as a heretic.

Tass

Posts: 1701
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 2:21 pm UTC
Location: Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen.

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

TychoMaudd wrote: If you want to see something special about numbers, e^(pi*i)-1=0 (I don't know how to make that look fancy on this board, any help with it would be appreciated)...

Spoiler:
To make it look like this:
If you want to see something special about numbers, e^{\pi i}-1=0

you would need to type this:
Code: Select all
If you want to see something special about numbers,[imath]e^{\pi i}-1=0[/imath]

The imath tags allow you to put equations inline, whereas the math tags will set it out in a new line and center it like this:
If you want to see something special about numbers,
e^{\pi i}-1=0

Code: Select all
If you want to see something special about numbers, $e^{\pi i}-1=0$

All the forum math code notation is to my knowledge the same as that used in LaTeX. If you're not familiar with this then chapter 3 of The Not So Short Guide To LaTeX gives an excellent overview with lots of examples, and is widely and freely distributed online (e.g. first .pdf link here).

D.B.

Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:08 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

TychoMaudd wrote: If you want to see something special about numbers, e^(pi*i)-1=0 (I don't know how to make that look fancy on this board, any help with it would be appreciated)...
[/quote]

Whilst we're on this tangent, in case scratch does take your excellent advice and investigate Euler's identity, it should be a "+" not a "-" (or the equals sign can be moved instead).
Gear wrote:I'm not sure if it would be possible to constantly eat enough chocolate to maintain raptor toxicity without killing oneself.

eSOANEM

Posts: 1924
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantebrycge

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

eSOANEM wrote:Whilst we're on this tangent, in case scratch does take your excellent advice and investigate Euler's identity, it should be a "+" not a "-" (or the equals sign can be moved instead).

Doh! I knew there was a problem posting half drunk after working a 12hr shift. It's fixed now, thanks for catching that.
TychoMaudd

Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

Tass wrote:
curtis95112 wrote:Or maybe get a high school textbook on any science subject.
First chapter. The scientific method.

Ah, yes. What a wonderful world it would be if the first chapter in any science textbook explained the scientific method.

My bad, the textbooks I used tended to have them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
addams wrote: There is no such thing as an Unbiased Jury.
curtis95112

Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:One thing that was missing from my earlier theory was I didn't have a mathematical basis for 1836 so lets fix that problem. The number 1836 can be described as 6 + 1 = 7 * 4 = 28 + 1 = 29 * 4 = 116 - 1 = 115 * 4 = 460 - 1 = 459 * 4 = 1836. Now since 4 appears 4 times it leads you to think that the number 4 has something to do with electrons and it turns out that it does. The equation that describes how many electrons can occupy a shell is given by 2n^2. When the number 4 is plugged in it gives you 32 which is also the maximum number of electrons that can be in one shell. The +1 represents the positive electric field inside the electron and the -1 represents the negative electric field outside the electron that it generates.

There is also another way to describe 1836. You would think that since electrons go in a circular orbit they may be related to pi in some way. This is exactly what I found. I found that 6(pi)^5 = 1836. Since carbon is atomic number 6 this explains why carbon bonds to so many atoms. The 5th prime number is 11 which appears in e/2^11. Overall this makes my theory much stronger than it was before.

Apart from the terrible writing style (for example, do you really think that 6+1=7*4?), there are dozens of numbers you can build in a similar way. Why this way, why 1836? You would not get this number as prediction. And for a postdiction, the calculation is quite weird.
In addition, 1836 is only an approximation. The ratio is known to be 1836.15267245(75), where (75) denotes one standard deviation of the uncertainty. You cannot get this number with integer hocus-pocus.

The proton/neutron ratio is exactly 1.0013784188113242561504264537877 and e/2^11 is equal to 0.00132728564453125 when you take the first 4 decimal places of e. The first 4 digits are obviously the same so lets start at the last digit that is the same for both which is 3 and lets do this for the e/2^11 number. Start at 3 and move to the right 2 spaces. Now you are at 7 which is the same next digit in the proton/neutron ratio. Now move over 2 again. Again the 8's match up. Now move over 3. The 4's match up. Now move 4 and the 1's match up. This makes them equal to 8 decimal places which is a much better approximation than the previous approximation of 4.

And next, you explain why the decimal system is something special? This won't work the same way in any other base. But I am sure you can find similar stuff in all other bases, if you try hard enough. What does that prove? That it is always possible to make up stuff like that.
mfb

Posts: 803
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:48 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

TychoMaudd wrote:
scratch123 wrote:You are right that I need to learn more chemistry. Not all theories can make predictions. My theory is more of a descriptive theory that describes certain sets of numbers in a different way than just writing the numbers down.

If you can't make predictions then it is not a theory, just a hypothesis. If you can't make testable predictions it will never be a scientific theory as there is no way to verify your results. One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is that after you have a hypothesis you use it to make predictions and then see if your hypothesis stands up to experimental rigors.

scratch123 wrote:The difference between 22/7 and those other numbers you listed is 22 and 7 are both smaller. Math is about simplicity and these 2 numbers are much simpler to describe. Also your post just raises the question as to why those numbers are approximations of pi while others are not. I am betting there is some underlying property that all those numbers have. I looked up some stuff about rational approximations of pi and found these 2 links: http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/BLOG/1999/0728_RATIONAL_PI/ and http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/BLOG/1999/072 ... rgence.txt . I guess this problem is pretty well understood after all.

The numbers 22 and 7 are smaller because they are more inaccurate than the other approximations. By your logic, 3 is an even better approximation for pi because it is simpler! There is nothing special about these approximations, they are arbitrary numbers used to make the maths easier when you don't need precision, just a 'close enough' result. Not meaning to toot my own horn here, but finding approximations, and various computational solutions to pi was a past time I had in boring middle/high school classes. The topic is so well explored that I would see how long ago anything I came up with was discovered and nearly all were at least a hundred if not hundreds of years old.

scratch123 wrote:The proton/neutron ratio is exactly 1.0013784188113242561504264537877 and e/2^11 is equal to 0.00132728564453125 when you take the first 4 decimal places of e.

If you only use the first 4 digits of e, you limit the precision you can use for that ratio to 0.0013273 due to the lack of significant figures. (And if you argue otherwise, please google "significant figures") Any digits past that are meaningless since you cut your precision of e to get a result close enough to use 'hocus pokus' in an attempt to say they are equal (Hint: if they differ, or you need to limit the precision so they don't, then they aren't equal).

I don't know where you got that number for the proton/neutron mass ratio from since it has far more precision then I have ever seen. The NIST value for the proton/neutron mass ratio is 1.00137841917(45). If you'll notice that there are two digits in parathesis, these are the standard deviation in the last two digits of the value caused by the lack of accuracy in that precise of measurement. This means that there is a ~68% that the measurement falls between .00137841872 and .00137841962, so we do not have an exact value for the ratio.

scratch123 wrote:One thing that was missing from my earlier theory was I didn't have a mathematical basis for 1836 so lets fix that problem. The number 1836 can be described as 6 + 1 = 7 * 4 = 28 + 1 = 29 * 4 = 116 - 1 = 115 * 4 = 460 - 1 = 459 * 4 = 1836. Now since 4 appears 4 times it leads you to think that the number 4 has something to do with electrons and it turns out that it does. The equation that describes how many electrons can occupy a shell is given by 2n^2. When the number 4 is plugged in it gives you 32 which is also the maximum number of electrons that can be in one shell. The +1 represents the positive electric field inside the electron and the -1 represents the negative electric field outside the electron that it generates.

The number 4 does not have anything to do with describing electrons. Ignoring what one of my favorite professors would call 'mumbo jumbo' in there, 32 is not the maximum number of electrons that can fit into a shell. It's the number of electrons that can fit into the N shell. There is still a larger shell beyond that, the O shell, which holds 2*5^2 electrons. Any element with a number higher than 118 would start to fill that shell (there are several recent experiments that claimed to have synthesized such elements).

scratch123 wrote:There is also another way to describe 1836. You would think that since electrons go in a circular orbit they may be related to pi in some way. This is exactly what I found. I found that 6(pi)^5 = 1836. Since carbon is atomic number 6 this explains why carbon bonds to so many atoms. The 5th prime number is 11 which appears in e/2^11. Overall this makes my theory much stronger than it was before.

There are several things wrong with this:

The reason that carbon can form such a vast variety of chemicals is already explained very well with molecular orbital theory which is brushed on by even a basic university chemistry course.

The idea that electrons travel in circular orbits was disproven nearly a hundred years ago. The solution to the schrodinger equation for the simplest, most basic atoms and molecules was discovered in the twenties. It shows that not only do electrons not travel circular orbitals, but that the location, and motion of electrons bound to atoms can only be described in terms of probability.

As was stated before, since pi is irrational (and transcendental), you cannot say that 6(pi)^5=1836. If you really want to explore mathematics, explore the fact that pi is transcendental, no matter how you add, multiply or take powers/roots of rational numbers in a finite number of steps, you'll never exactly solve for pi. Similarly, if you add, multiply, raise to a power or take a root of pi using rational numbers, you'll never get a rational number.

Please, please educate yourself before trying to develop your own hypothesis about chemistry. Failing to do so is an affront to chemists, physicists and mathematicians everywhere and only serves to show your ignorance in the subject matter.

There are some theories like loop quantum gravity that make no predictions that a simpler theory doesn't make yet people still work on them hoping one day they will be able to make some predictions. It doesn't really matter to me what I call it so I can call my theory a hypothesis if you want. Its not like math by itself makes predictions either. Some of the things you are saying go against some of the things I remember reading on wikipedia so I will have to look into it more to figure out who is right. I don't feel like looking for all the links right now. You also seem to be against the idea that there can be more than one explanation for the same thing. Just because molecular orbital theory describes why carbon bonds to so many things doesn't mean there can't be another explanation for it as well. I guess I should have clarified that when I put a equal sign I sometimes mean approximately equal. I just don't feel like writing out approximately equal every time. My writing style could probably use some work as well. If you just think about it for a little you should be able to understand what 6 + 1 = 7 * 4 = 28 + 1 = 29 * 4 = 116 - 1 = 115 * 4 = 460 - 1 = 459 * 4 = 1836 means even though it isn't in standard notation. It is about what it looks like if you put those numbers and operations in order into a calculator. For the most part 32 is the maximum number of electrons per shell. Atoms with numbers higher than 118 are exceptional cases since they don't appear in nature so my theory doesn't have to deal with them.

Let me recalculate the proton/neutron ratio again since the numbers have changed since I last visited wikipedia. Proton mass = 1.007276466812 u, Neutron mass = 1.00866491600 u, neutron/proton = 1.0013784191666806237451152100271. Since my theory only accounts for 8 decimal places (6 significant figures) lets shorten it to 1.00137841. This is the same value as the value in my original theory so everything works out fine. I think the reason they got a different value (for your source) is because they were using mev/c^2 which isn't as accurate as u (molecular mass).

Also regarding the pi thing from what I can understand from the links I posted (if you even read them) the rational approximations of pi are related to the continued fraction representation of pi. They are not arbitrary numbers since nothing in math is arbitrary.
scratch123

Posts: 209
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:18 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering

Basically, you just need a formal way to describe each chemical (e.g. its emperical formula), and then assign each symbol a 3-digit number (3 digits allows us to name all the elements).

For example, let's say 000 through 009 are the digits 1-9, and 101+ are the atomic number of the elements, plus 100. Then we can say water is H2O, or 101,002,008

From this, assuming we have a decision procedure to determine if a given string is a valid formula (not necessarily chemically, but one that "looks like" an empirical formula; though you could certainly make an attempt at the former), then we can create a function that maps these formulas to the positive integers, meaning that each positive integer refers to a unique chemical, and vice-versa. though these numbers will have little relation to the actual formula of the chemical
Blue, blue, blue

undecim

Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 7:09 pm UTC

### Re: Representing chemical formulas as a single number

scratch123 wrote:They are not arbitrary numbers since nothing in math is arbitrary.
Your "theory" in this thread, however, is entirely arbitrary, and I don't see any point in continuing to humor your nonsense here.
In the future, there will be a global network of billions of adding machines.... One of the primary uses of this network will be to transport moving pictures of lesbian sex by pretending they are made out of numbers.
Spoiler:
gmss1 gmss2

gmalivuk
Archduke Vendredi of Skellington the Third, Esquire

Posts: 19277
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here, There, Everywhere (near Boston, anyway)

Previous