There are some presentations of patterns of related ELSs which are thought
to be interesting. The people who present them often exclaim, expicitly or by implicit inference,
that the probability of this happening by chance is small. There are also some who
attempt to analytically calculate the probability of a complex pattern. Here we show
that the exclamations of small probabilities and the calculations of small probabilities
are easily glaringly wrong.

We begin with an ELS pattern relating to the
Rambam. Here is a description about how a simple probability can be calculated and
how the simple probability calculation is in fact not relevant; it is in fact meaningless.
When the probability question is framed so that description of the interesting pattern is
beginning to be demonstrably a priori, so that the probability will be meaningful,
the calculation shows that the pattern is
expected; it is nothing unusual.

Next we look at one of the patterns discussed by Novick who notices that the year 5755 appears
some unexpectedingly (for him) large number of times in chapter 34 of Exodus. We examine his
statement and the pattern and show that it is indeed expected. Nothing unusual is going on.

Next we look at some of the patterns discussed by Rambsel
who uses patterns he found of ELSs to prove that Yeshuah is encoded in special ways
in the Torah. He rhetorically asks who can calculate the probability? implying
that the probability is very small. We do the calculation and show that
the pattern he found is nothing unusual.

There are some that attempt the probability calculation analytically. A correct analytic
calculation is difficult and often messy and most do not know how to do it. The simple analytic
calculations made in some Bible code programs sold commercially
are glaringly wrong and can be off by an order or more of magnitude.

Example:
Table With Wrong Analytic Calculation

In general, the only safe way
to compute a probability in Torah code experiments is by a Monte Carlo simulation. The following
article provides a technical discussion of why the analytic calculation described by
Reinhold and done in the * codefinder* program is wrong.