Houshalter wrote:It can't be that because a lot of the sections aren't perfect replicas of the previous section. Some sections could be copy pastes, but they each look slightly different. It's pretty clear when you look at it on a graph.
It's pretty clear even without a graph. Just by LOOKING at the numbers you begin to find patterns. And after 10-20 minutes with the "find" feature of your favorite word processor, the general structure becomes quite clear.
But I still don't see how this serves as evidence that the code is real. What's stopping the OP from doing a copy/paste and than manually changing some of the numbers?
I'm not saying that he necessarily did that. But it is a possibility. Especially since the guy wrote us this puzzle over 2 years ago, and we haven't heard from him since. I love playing around with codes, and I am kind of OCDish when it comes to codes I haven't cracked yet, but this kind of behavior from the OP isn't exactly encouraging...
EDIT to add:
Another thing that bothers me with this puzzle, is that the OP put seemingly impossible conditions on what the sequence generating rule may be.
He states that it does not involve words in any language or any alphabetic mappings, but then continues to say that "letters are involved in a way".
He also states that the rule doesn't involve any equations or sequences other than the natural numbers, yet it isn't based on statistical data or other information from anywhere.
Which seems to leave us with pretty much nothing, doesn't it?