Colette, what you are attempting to grasp is in effect a circular argument from Ogygos;

1) What exists as ruin proves the math involved because
2) the math involved proves the ruins exist as they are.

In fact, there has not been a shred of evidence his math is involved in any way. At the best he could argue coincidence, but since HE chooses the words, the spelling, and the mathematical equivelent of that spelling he controls 100% the outcome. The reason you find it hard to grasp his proof is the same reason wrestling with wood-smoke is so consistently frustrating.

Namely;
There is NOTHING there to grasp.

Jammer