plss refer to the 44th chap of the davini code and pls send me the "exact 10 digit no." that is there in the middle of that chap.remeber it is in the 44th chap and not in any other chapters.
134080
You have asked this question before and it is not clear what you are asking for..... The code to which you refer:\n\n1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21\n\nis a well known series of numbers referred to as the Fibonacci Sequence (the sequence continues on and the numbers quoted are the first 8). In the book, these numbers, when placed in the correct sequence (above) represent, among other things, an account number. They had been randomly written (out of sequence) beside the body in the Louvre in order to disquise their true meaning.\n\nFor more on the Fibonacci Sequence see:\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_number
331448
Haha. You know if someone even did have the code, they would be implicating themselves real bad by giving it to you here... So I really do not think anyone will answer this request here man. Have a good weekend!
541049
How do people come up with that?  Yes it really is amazing.  It boggles my mind to try to think of how someone figured all that out.  I dont think it proves anything about the book though.
77829
I think the contributions thus far have hit upon the reason, but I'm not sure it is all tied together.\n\nChoosing any two-digit number and subtracting its separate digits will yield 81 for any two-digit number that starts with 9, 72 for a choice of 8x (8x = 89, 88, 87, 86, to 80), 63 for a choice of 7x, and so on.\n\n9*9 = 81\n8*9 = 72\n7*9 = 63\n6*9 = 54\netc\n\nIf you look at the corresponding numbers for ALL of these choices you will see the same symbol! So no matter where you start you will always get this answer.\n\nAlso, the symbols change every few refreshes of the page. So when you "Try Again?" you will get a fresh symbol. If you look at them closely you will see this happen as you go back and play again and again.\n\nThis is a very slick game, and even tho I know how it works, I still think it's way kewl.\n\nlol
50375
In an interview with Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse (the shows writers) they said that this question "will never, ever be answered". Here's the specific question and answer and find the whole article over at lost-forum.com by following the link in the source section.\n\nQuestion:Will we get any clarification about the numbers this season?\n\nDamon: Carlton might want to punch me for actually going on record and saying this, but I think that that question will never, ever be answered. I couldn't possibly imagine [how we would answer that question]. We will see more ramifications of the numbers and more usage of the numbers, but it boggles my mind when people ask me, "What do the numbers mean?"
347635
Roman please! Don't confuse the poor girl any more than she already is.  Which is  it, 23 or 24?\n  \nTat, Roman was on the right track with this one.  He had the right concept, but the wrong constant in the end.  Guess that's why the Caesars no longer rule.\n\nIf Greg now runs 35 miles today, then six weeks ago he started running 35 - 2(6) or 23 miles per week.  Letting m be the mileage run per week, and n the number of weeks he runs, then we come up with this equation for the mileage Greg runs each week he is on the program.:\n\nm = 23 + 2n.\n\nWe defy the normal convention of putting the constant at the end of the equation this time, because that was the mileage Greg started with, and everything else is added to it.
250805
Thanks.\nI have an idea:\nLet us all go to Hashita's Q&A page. There are at least 40  questions all asked by 'No Name' and resolved by 'Hashita'! Rate all his best-answers (you know what rating it should be), and get our 40 points! \nGive him a treat(ment) guys! He has earned more than 480 by cheating. We all deserve to have our share of 10%.
579388
Interesting, though I would like to see it taken further (as to proofs, etc.).  If you liked that book, try reading "The Woman with the Alabaster Jar."  Sorry, I can't remember the name of the woman who wrote it.
164107
The last digit of the powers of 2 follow a definite pattern, which is 2, 4, 8, 6, and then again 2, 4, 8, 6 etc. \n\nTo find the answer, simply take 51 mod 4, (which happens to be 3), and the third number in the list is 8. The answer is therefore 8.
609491
i don't know actually. but if you do get it, send it to me plz.. to this address.. hani_starz@yahoo.com.. thanks
257390
OK, CREATIVE, here's how it works:\n\nFirst let's think of what we mean by writing a number as follows:  "4321". \n\nWe mean the number is [(4X1000) + (3x100) + (2X10) + 1X1)]. \n\nIn other words, the number is the sum of four thousands, three hundreds, two tens, and one ones.\n\nWe'll call your word sequence of directions the "sequence", for short. What I intend to do is derive the number 1755 or 1756, as appropriate, because that is the key to how the sequence works. The multiplication that the sequence calls out just serves to positions numbers in the columns so that the last three digits of the answer become, in order, the chocolate number, the first age digit, and the second age digit.\n\nAlso To help simplify things, let's name the numbers 1755 & 1756, the "adjuster", because they "adjust" the sequence so that when we subtact our birth year, we arrive at the desired three-digit answer!\n\nNow let's write the sequence of steps you outlined as an equation, where n = the number of times we eat chocolate, and 19xy represents the year of birth (YOB).\n\n(By the way, the sequence doesn't work if you were born before 1901 or after 1999, but we when finish here, you'll have the tools to fix it to work for either the 19th or 21st centuries! YEAH!) :-)\n\nSo here's the sequence written as an equation:\n\n\n{[100(n) + 250] + 1756} - 19xy = nTO\n\nWhere we've assigned "T" as in "T"ens column, as the first digit in the age, and "O" as in "O"nes column, as the second digit. So the answer to the equation is properly "nTO".\n  \ndouble check the equation by going back and reading what the sequence spells-out.\n\nNotice that whatever (n) is, the first term of the equation, 100(n), will always create, in the hundreds (third) column, the number we chose for (n)!!!\n\nAHAW! - we've already cracked part of the trick!  We know we have to choose our "adjuster" such that it cancels-out any other numbers appearing in the hundreds column! The "n" gets preserved because its the first digit of the answer!\n\nSimple - eh?\n\nFor now, lets assign the adjuster the value ABCD, where the alphabet letters represent the numbers we need to derive. \n\nUsing our terminology and chain, we can re-write the equation as a column of numbers to be added and subtracted as follows:\n   \n             0n00\n             0250\n             ABCD \n             19xy(-)\n            ______\n             0nTO               \n \nNote: The lead zero's in rows one, two, and the answer row are put there to try and line-up the columns correctly when they appear on the yahoo! answer site, which otherwise moves them out of position because it "left justifies" all columns. By the same token, normally the minus sign for the "19xy", which is to be subtracted, would appear in front, instead of behind, but in so doing  the program mis-aligns the columns. Also note that the alphabet letters do not line-up accurately with the numbers. Readers will have to mentally correct for these mis-alignments.  Sorry!\n\n\nHang on!  We're almost there!  The hard part's done, it's all down  hill from here!  :-)\n\nNow let's plug in to the columns the numbers for an easy case, say a ten-year old born in 1996, then work backwords and see what numbers result for the "ABCD".\n\nplugging in age 10, YOB of 1996, then the desired answer is n10. Go back and put in the answer line.\n\n Then see how the columns look. we have:\n    For the ones column,        D-6=0,      so D=6\n    For the tens column,       5+C-9=1,     so C=5          \n    For the hundreds column,  n+2+B-9=n     so B=7\n    For the thousands column,    A-1=0      so A=1\n\nSo  ABCD = 1756  QED  (Quid Erat Demenstradum - what we wanted to demonstrate, as the Romans used to say!)\n\nNow you can have some fun and derive the "1755" adju
327367
I don't have a copy of it here but I would like to remind you - and the rest of the ummah worldwide - that it was a work of _fiction_! Like the DaVinci Code. I've read almost every fictional thing Rushdie has written and he never just sticks in sotto voce comments that are 'Rushdie's idea'. So you'll find that this comment is also put in the mouth of a fictional character.\n\nReally! You need to learn the difference between fiction and non-fiction! Check Wikipedia or something.
542292
OMG a math riddle I cant seem to answer!!!! :-)  Awesome. I cant sleep because now i want to knwo the anwer. And so i continue to try and solve it.\n\nBest i can come up with is 113  or 240 or 50-something..\nAlso maybe another number in the 100-n-teens\n\nI did find a 1-3-4 pattern aasuming the next number in 1-3-4-1 was a 3 but was unsure of how to continue it. (its1230 in the moring here)\n\nAnd again another possible patter 1-3-4-8 next number would be 16.\n\nI know some may not even know how I came up with these, but I love math and I love a challenge. I have been trying to find any possible correlation in the numbers that I can. \n\nHope someone figures it out. I know I cant wait to see the answer.
300347
the digits wouldn't even move at all for me.  probably a good thing, I've got too many things to do to sit there and punch in the code ever 108 minutes.  and who is going to stop using their computer for any other application (see training video).\n\nhere is an interesting fact:  the numbers punched in add up to 108.  bf skinner experiments were to get animals and people to do things for no particular reason.
480586
You need the 10 digits 0 through 9 (obviously). You also need another 1 and 2, so you can represent 11 and 22.
287293
this is possible to figure out.  What it is a combination of numbers   i will do examples to keep it simple.   If your number was 00  or 000  then the answer was 9.  well its a pattern    if your number is 001 then the answer he came up with was 8.  well then if you had 002  then it was 7.  but also on the note if your number was 011 or some combination of this number then it was 8 also  because when you take 011 and add 0+1+1 you get 2 so it was 8.   the way it works is the numbers you type in it adds them together so there is a correlating number that goes with the answer that was added together.  so... if the numer added together was 0 then it was 9.  and the number added together was 1 then he came up with 8.  added together you got 2 then he said 7.  and just keep going ... 3 is 6,   4 is 5.    also on the same account    5 is 4,  6 is 3,   7 is 2,   8 is 1,  and 9 is 0.
271146
An infinite number of positive integers contain the digit 3, because no matter how large an integer you imagine that contains the digit 3, there will always be an even larger integer that contains the digit 3.\n\nOkay, I'm thinking about this some more because you said proportion, but that gets complicated. I think it's too late for me to reason my way through this tonight. The problem is 3 can appear in any or all digit positions. 19 of the first 99 integers contain 3. 38 of the first 199 integers contain 3. 47 of the first 299 digits contain 3. But then 147 of the first 399 digits contain 3. Perhaps if you take this far enough you discover a pattern. But it's also possible that there is no definite proportion. Good luck with this. I'm going to bed now.\n\nAfter pondering this some more, as you expand your range of numbers more and more, an increasingly higher proportion of the numbers have the digit 3. For example, out of one digit number, 1/9 have the digit 3. When you look at the numbers 1 to 99, 18/99 qualify, for 1 to 999, 271/99, for 1 to 9999, 3439/9999. By the time you get to 9,999,999 more than half of numbers, 5217031/9999999, have the digit three. Each time you add a decimal place, the percentage continues to increase. So my hypothesis, without formal proof, is that the proportion of positive integers that contain 3 approaches, but of course can never actually equal 100%.\n\nI actually can't believe I gave this so much thought.