# Total Score

The number 23 is always (and trivially) equal to some running total of the digits of its roots in base 2. In other bases, that’s not always true (n.b. numbers inside square brackets represent single digits in that base):

√23 = 23^(1/2) = 100.1100101110111011100111010101110111000001000... in base 2
23 = digsum(100.110010111011101110011101010111011)
23^(1/2) = 11.21011101110011111122022101121121... in base 3
23 = digsum(11.2101110111001111112202)
23^(1/2) = 4.8832850[10]89028... in base 11
23 = digsum(4.883)
23^(1/2) = 4.[14]5[15]53[14]0[12]0[14]5[13]... in base 18
23 = digsum(4.[14]5)
23^(1/2) = 4.[19]29[13][19]4[11][23][19][11][20]... in base 24
23 = digsum(4.[19])
23^(1/2) = 4.[19][22]9[21][17]5[12][10]456... in base 25
23 = digsum(4.[19])

23^(1/3) = 10.11011000000001111010101010011000101000110000001100000010010000101011... in base 2
23 = digsum(10.1101100000000111101010101001100010100011000000110000001001)
23^(1/3) = 2.21121001121111121022212100220... in base 3
23 = digsum(2.2112100112111112102)
23^(1/3) = 2.312000132222212022030003... in base 4
23 = digsum(2.31200013222221)
23^(1/3) = 2.6600365246121403... in base 8
23 = digsum(2.660036)
23^(1/3) = 2.753154453877080... in base 9
23 = digsum(2.75315)
23^(1/3) = 2.93120691571[10]001[10]... in base 11
23 = digsum(2.931206)
23^(1/3) = 2.[12]9[13]0[11]74[11]61[14]2... in base 15
23 = digsum(2.[12]9)
23^(1/3) = 2.[13]807[10][10]98[10]303... in base 16
23 = digsum(2.[13]8)
23^(1/3) = 2.[21]2[10][10][13][11][21][23][15][24][21]... in base 25
23 = digsum(2.[21])
23^(1/3) = 2.[21][24][11][20][24][22][23][25]0[11][11]... in base 26
23 = digsum(2.[21])

23^(1/4) = 10.0011000010011111110100101010011000001001011110001110101... in base 2
23 = digsum(10.001100001001111111010010101001100000100101111)
23^(1/4) = 2.1411772251404570... in base 8
23 = digsum(2.141177)
23^(1/4) = 2.1634161832077814... in base 9
23 = digsum(2.163416)
23^(1/4) = 2.33[15]2[14][13]967[10]6[12]5... in base 17
23 = digsum(2.33[15])
23^(1/4) = 2.6[15][19][11][31][17][10][18][21]30[27]... in base 34
23 = digsum(2.6[15])
23^(1/4) = 2.[12]9[63][18][41][32][37][56][58][60]1[17]... in base 64
23 = digsum(2.[12]9)
23^(1/4) = 2.[21]9[26]6[54][21][20]3[64][86][110]... in base 111
23 = digsum(2.[21])
23^(1/4) = 2.[21][30][66][22][73][19]3[15][51][24]8... in base 112
23 = digsum(2.[21])
23^(1/4) = 2.[21][52][36][111][32][104][66][40][95][33]5... in base 113
23 = digsum(2.[21])
23^(1/4) = 2.[21][74][50][62][27]19[100][70][48][89]... in base 114
23 = digsum(2.[21])
23^(1/4) = 2.[21][96][108]2[101][62][43][18][71][113][37]... in base 115
23 = digsum(2.[21])

23^(1/5) = 1.110111110100011010011101000111111011111011000... in base 2
23 = digsum(1.11011111010001101001110100011111101)
23^(1/5) = 1.313310122131013323323010... in base 4
23 = digsum(1.31331012213101)
23^(1/5) = 1.[10]5714140[10][11][11]61... in base 12
23 = digsum(1.[10]57)
23^(1/5) = 1.[11]45210[12]3974[12]0[11]... in base 13
23 = digsum(1.[11]452)
23^(1/5) = 1.[22][17][15]788[12][20][10][16]5... in base 26
23 = digsum(1.[22])

And in base 10:

23^(1/7) = 1.565065607960239...
23 = digsum(1.56506)

23^(1/11) = 1.32982177397055...
23 = digsum(1.3298)

23^(1/25) = 1.133624213096260543...
23 = digsum(1.13362421)

23^(1/43) = 1.075642836327515...
23 = digsum(1.07564)

23^(1/51) = 1.0634095245502272...
23 = digsum(1.063409)

23^(1/59) = 1.054581462032154...
23 = digsum(1.05458)

23^(1/74) = 1.043282031364111825...
23 = digsum(1.04328203)

23^(1/78) = 1.041017545329593513...
23 = digsum(1.04101754)

23^(1/81) = 1.039468791371841...
23 = digsum(1.03946)

23^(1/85) = 1.037576979258809...
23 = digsum(1.03757)

23^(1/86) = 1.0371320245405187874...
23 = digsum(1.037132024)

23^(1/101) = 1.031531403111493041428...
23 = digsum(1.03153140311)

# Sime Time

I came across the writings of Simon Whitechapel a year ago after picking up the first twenty or so issues of Headpress, a 1990s ’zine that dealt with the relentlessly grim, the esoteric and prurient. His style was fascinating, coming across as intelligent and well-read and — at least from first reading — subtly ironic.

In fact he must have impressed some other people during this time too as Headpress’ Critical Vision imprint spun his collected articles together for publication under the title Intense Device: A Journey Through Lust, Murder and the Fires of Hell — they have all the typical interests that run through Whitechapel’s work — there is an obsession with numerology, with Whitehouse-style distortion music, with Hitler and de Sade. There are also articles on farting, on Jack Chick and novelisations of TV shows. They are fascinating, written in a scholarly way with footnotes aplenty but never difficult to understand. He also wrote two non-fiction works during the late 1990s and early 2000s that centred around sadism and the murder of women in South America. They are dark.

There are also the works of fiction. To say that Whitechapel is transgressive is an understatement. His writing bleeds. The ‘official’ work The Slaughter King is filled with the detailed descriptions of sadistic murder, beginning with a serial killer murdering a gay prostitute whilst listening to distortion-atrocity music. The plot is schlocky but serviceable, jumping around inconsistently but the images it creates are terrifying. A bourgeois dinner party straight out of Buñuel and Pasolini’s nightmares where guests are served poisons as if they were the finest consommés: they eat bees until their faces swell, dropping dead at the table, finishing with a trifle “made from the berries of the several varieties of belladonna, of cuckoo-pint, and of the flowers of monkshood”. It’s a sinister book, but nothing compared to his second work.

Whitechapel wrote The Eyes. This is clear just from a simple comparison between his texts, the fascination with language, with sadism, with de Sade. The thing is, The Eyes is supposedly written by some guy called Aldapuerta, Spanish apparently. ‘Aldapuerta’ can be written Alda Puerta — ‘at the gate’, a telling description of these short stories, which go past this point many, many times. The tale of ‘Aldapuerta’ himself is too exact to be believed: a young boy with an interest in de Sade, corrupted by the local pornographer, medical-school training that honed his knowledge, then a mysterious death (echoing shades of Pasolini’s own) and finishing with the “and he might be baaaack” closer. But this point isn’t really an issue and it’s understandable that Whitechapel would want to keep his name away from this work. It is also surrealistically brilliant at times: amongst the brutality, the images it creates are unforgettable.

Of course, Whitechapel is a fake name, redolent of Jack the Ripper, and even Simon was taken from elsewhere — a colleague perhaps? He disappeared during the 2000s, no longer writing for Headpress, a few self-published chapbooks pastiching Clark Ashton Smith… where did he go? There are the rumours of prison time — they are convincing to my mind, as they too revolve around different identities, around extremity and anonymity. I wonder though, if true, just how much this individual actually believed in them. His most recent writings, at his tricksy blog, hint at this, as well as make his ‘relationship’ with Aldapuerta clearer but it’s not in my ability to directly connect the personas.

If you want to be fascinated and repulsed, then the non-author Simon Whitechapel is for you.

Elsewhere other-posted:

It’s The Gweel Thing…Gweel & Other Alterities, Simon Whitechapel (Ideophasis Books, 2011)

# DeVil to Power

666 is the Number of the Beast described in the Book of Revelation:

13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

But 666 is not just diabolic: it’s narcissistic too. That is, it mirrors itself using arithmetic, like this:

666^47 =

5,049,969,684,420,796,753,173,148,798,405,
564,772,941,516,295,265,408,188,117,632,
668,936,540,446,616,033,068,653,028,889,
892,718,859,670,297,563,286,219,594,665,
904,733,945,856 → 5 + 0 + 4 + 9 + 9 + 6 + 9 + 6 + 8 + 4 + 4 + 2 + 0 + 7 + 9 + 6 + 7 + 5 + 3 + 1 + 7 + 3 + 1 + 4 + 8 + 7 + 9 + 8 + 4 + 0 + 5 + 5 + 6 + 4 + 7 + 7 + 2 + 9 + 4 + 1 + 5 + 1 + 6 + 2 + 9 + 5 + 2 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 0 + 8 + 1 + 8 + 8 + 1 + 1 + 7 + 6 + 3 + 2 + 6 + 6 + 8 + 9 + 3 + 6 + 5 + 4 + 0 + 4 + 4 + 6 + 6 + 1 + 6 + 0 + 3 + 3 + 0 + 6 + 8 + 6 + 5 + 3 + 0 + 2 + 8 + 8 + 8 + 9 + 8 + 9 + 2 + 7 + 1 + 8 + 8 + 5 + 9 + 6 + 7 + 0 + 2 + 9 + 7 + 5 + 6 + 3 + 2 + 8 + 6 + 2 + 1 + 9 + 5 + 9 + 4 + 6 + 6 + 5 + 9 + 0 + 4 + 7 + 3 + 3 + 9 + 4 + 5 + 8 + 5 + 6 = 666

666^51 =

993,540,757,591,385,940,334,263,511,341,
295,980,723,858,637,469,431,008,997,120,
691,313,460,713,282,967,582,530,234,558,
214,918,480,960,748,972,838,900,637,634,
215,694,097,683,599,029,436,416 → 9 + 9 + 3 + 5 + 4 + 0 + 7 + 5 + 7 + 5 + 9 + 1 + 3 + 8 + 5 + 9 + 4 + 0 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 2 + 6 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 3 + 4 + 1 + 2 + 9 + 5 + 9 + 8 + 0 + 7 + 2 + 3 + 8 + 5 + 8 + 6 + 3 + 7 + 4 + 6 + 9 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 0 + 0 + 8 + 9 + 9 + 7 + 1 + 2 + 0 + 6 + 9 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 4 + 6 + 0 + 7 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 8 + 2 + 9 + 6 + 7 + 5 + 8 + 2 + 5 + 3 + 0 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 8 + 2 + 1 + 4 + 9 + 1 + 8 + 4 + 8 + 0 + 9 + 6 + 0 + 7 + 4 + 8 + 9 + 7 + 2 + 8 + 3 + 8 + 9 + 0 + 0 + 6 + 3 + 7 + 6 + 3 + 4 + 2 + 1 + 5 + 6 + 9 + 4 + 0 + 9 + 7 + 6 + 8 + 3 + 5 + 9 + 9 + 0 + 2 + 9 + 4 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 1 + 6 = 666

But those are tiny numbers compared to 6^(6^6). That means 6^46,656 and equals roughly 2·6591… x 10^36,305. It’s 36,306 digits long and its full digit-sum is 162,828. However, 666 lies concealed in those digits too. To see how, consider the function Σ(x1,xn), which returns the sum of digits 1 to n of x. For example, π = 3·14159265…, so Σ(π14) = 3 + 1 + 4 + 1 = 9. The first 150 digits of 6^(6^6) are these:

26591197721532267796824894043879185949053422002699
24300660432789497073559873882909121342292906175583
03244068282650672342560163577559027938964261261109
… (150 digits)

If x = 6^(6^6), then Σ(x1,x146) = 666, Σ(x2,x148) = 666, and Σ(x2,x149) = 666.

There’s nothing special about these patterns: infinitely many numbers are narcissistic in similar ways. However, 666 has a special cultural significance, so people pay it more attention and look for patterns related to it more carefully. Who cares, for example, that 667 = digit-sum(667^48) = digit-sum(667^54) = digit-sum(667^58)? Fans of recreational maths will, but not very much. The Number of the Beast is much more fun, narcissistically and otherwise:

666 = digit-sum(6^194)
666 = digit-sum(6^197)

666 = digit-sum(111^73)
666 = digit-sum(111^80)

666 = digit-sum(222^63)
666 = digit-sum(222^66)

666 = digit-sum(333^58)
666 = digit-sum(444^53)
666 = digit-sum(777^49)
666 = digit-sum(999^49)