No one mentions how Elfimov's original paper had hand written in the marginalia:

Маленькие Threes тройки имеют больше
По Их спины, чтобы связать им,
И большие Threes тройки имеют biggerer
и так до бесконечности

Which translated means

Little threes have bigger threes
Upon their backs to bind 'em
And bigger threes have biggerer threes
and so, ad infinitum

takes a great command of language to write a poem including 2 languages, and even using incorrect forms 'correctly'. Nice.

This is a paraphrasing of the old nursery rhyme "The Siphonaptera" aka "The Fleas":

Big fleas have little fleas,
Upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so, ad infinitum.

mangled and run through google translate of course.

Father, Son, and Holy Moly

This is where real science just amazes--prediction. It has always astounded me that mathematicians and physicists can work on computations that will demonstrate a phenomenon or structure and will be proved correct, decades in the future. To my delight I learned that Darwin predicted the existence of a certain type of insect based on the structure of a flower and years later the exact moth with the requisite physiology was discovered. Go science!

Are you equally amazed at all the predictions that prove to be wrong?

It is much easier to come up with an incorrect prediction than a correct one.

Wrong predictions are necessary to form correct ones. You fall on your ass a lot on the way to learning to walk.

Nobody asserted otherwise. Thanks for the input, Captain Obvious. Love your Hotel Booking commercials.

Ah, the bold statements one can make from behind the safety of his computer monitor ;)

Just as much can be learned from being wrong as being proved right .....

When something is proven right much less is learned than when something is proven wrong. Science is more about proving things wrong than right. So personally yes I am equally amazed when something thought to be correct in science is proven wrong it means we need to do more experiments and further refine our measuring equipment or even better, come up with complete new theories which will cause the cycle to start all over again.

hypothetically what you said is correct. :)

The scientific discipline is the greatest thing ever conceived by mankind. I sometimes feel like I want to go through all those stupid hick towns with "Jesus saves" billboards everywhere and spraypaint "Science saves - literally, morons."

what about Allah saves?

Allah would nama al-mal, because most western banking is haraam

No imaginary friend saves anything. Science saves people constantly.

Three cheers for Eugenics!!!

I thought they broke up when Annie Lennox went Diva!

Please cite your scientific evidence that god is imaginary.

The burden of proof is on those who make the claims, not those who deny them due to lack of any evidence.

You claimed that JihaPeace's god was imaginary. Your claim. Your burden.

He claims his god is real. His claim. His burden. This is like me claiming there is a giant black bee at the center of our galaxy. PROVE ME WRONG!

'Prove me wrong'?... Your claim, your burden. As much as you would wish, you cannot have it both ways.

You making a large logical fallacy, I'm sorry. It can't be that both god existing and god not existing are claims, and that they both require the burden of proof. The burden of proof falls on the claim of something existing.

You can't have the burden of proof of a claim be on both its existence and lack of existence, it is one or the other. I'm sorry to say it, but it is you who cannot have it both ways.

No one has scientifically proven god exists. No one has scientifically proven god doesn't exist.

The difference is the religious people just say they have faith. You are absolutely certain of something that has not been scientifically proven. But you won't admit it. That's why you keep deflecting to the other person.

I'm done, logic escapes you. The concept of gods have been around since man. I'm simply saying until these myths have some evidence these claims are unfounded. For the existence of something is being said to exist by them. Something that no other person would ever assumes exists. The burden of proof falls on the claim of existence, not lack of existence.

I have "faith" unicorns exist. What proof do you have to show my claim to be false? NOTHING I SAY, NOTHING. This is the logic used by the religious for the existence of their higher beings.

Some scientist you are. You are so desperate to declare one unproven concept that you cling to your own unproven concept.

If you believed in science, or logic, you would realize that the universe being created by an entity is just as possible as the universe springing into existence without any cause.

Science is simply the limited understanding of how God created all.

No, it has nothing to do with your imaginary friend. It only asks questions that can be answered.

If you know the answer why ask the
Question?

What? We ask questions looking for answers, religion is the one that claims to know the answer, which is why whenever science proves something people think is right wrong from a religious pretense religion is what changes.

42

Very nicely put. It seems that "Seek and you will find" is more relevant now in modern science than ever before.

First sentence = on track for a good comment. Second sentence = completely unrelated and stupid. Thank you for your contribution.

Sorry if I offended your superstitions.

WOW SO EDGY.

Why are you sorry about something you intended? If not at first, then certainly with your comeback.

Science and religion are not in conflict.

Except for when religion has to change what it thinks based on the truths science has revealed.

Yeah, science really explains well how that one cell that somehow started this thing called life came into existence.

How did a thing called god come into existence?

He didn't - our universe is created with space and time of which he is outside. We can't understand anything outside of the frame of time, so many wonder about that pointless question. Why would an omnipotent god be limited by time or space?

If you call "mythical" what anyone else believes, then you have to ask yourself why your beliefs are more than mythical. If you say all myths are equally valid, you speak utter nonsense. If you need God to explain why there is a universe, then it is perfectly valid to ask "Then where did God come from?"

But brother, Have You been Saved?

This could actually be looked at as a subset of a larger theory called fractal cosmology, or chaos theory depending on the literature. Infinite complexity from simple patterns and rules, self similarity, randomness and order combined into something truly beautiful. Clouds, leafs, and snowflakes are terrific examples of this. The pattern of self similar "threes" described in this article definitely fits the framework.

If you are looking for symmetry try E8 http://science.howstuffwork... although many theories posit it is symmetry breaking that leads to interesting things...now back to that Penrose tiling project...

Excellent link, thank you.

You seem to be the brightest bulb on the tree. So what does the great expenditure of time and energy mean to mankind? Will it make chickens lay 3 more eggs? Will 3 pounds of beef cost less? Will it break the bank at a casino in Las Vegas? Or is it just 3 more truckloads of bullshit?