So Numbers 1 includes a census list. I was reading through it and noticed that there seems to be some grouping of numbers, so I decided to write it all out here so that it is some place. I will not be considering the last two digits of the numbers since the numbers come in distributions of 50 and so the last number will always be 0 and the second to last number will always be 0 or 5.

Let’s look at the distribution of the first digit. We are separating this since it cannot be a 0 and so it must fall within the 1-9 range.

1 = 0

2 = 0

3 = 2

4 = 4

5 = 4

6 = 1

7 = 1

8 = 0

9 = 0

So there is definitely a clustering in the first digit. This might be somewhat expected as one might hypothesize that the tribes were around the same sizes (although note that the firstborns are listed at 22,273 (3:43)–significant both because of its distribution of numbers and the fact that it does not round to the nearest 50, which makes sense in the context).

Now let’s look at the rest of the digits and see where they fall (again, excluding the final two):

0 = 1

1 = 1

2 = 3

3 = 2

4 = 6

5 = 5

6 = 3

7 = 2

8 = 0

9 = 1

We can see here that the numbers are not evenly distributed. There are 24 different numbers with 10 possible results (0-9), so one would expect 2.4 as the average per number. Yet four of the numbers have 0 or 1 as a result. On the other end of the spectrum, 4 comes in at six and 5 comes in at 5.

Now, whether all of this is significant or not and, if so, how it is significant, I am not sure. Nonetheless, the results are worth noting.

There are other interesting questions about the census (who could imagine!) that I might get around to later.