Yes, I remember you saying - from seemingly ages ago! Good to hear it's progressing.
Yeah, "I like three's"! The good old quarks of SU(3) and all that good stuff? If I still remembered (or had ever REALLY used!) some of that stuff, I'm sure the math(s) would lend itself to the purpose? I liked e.g. the 27 = 5 (!elements) + 22 (majors). I assume Crowley was working with that system, but the bits of e.g. the I-Ching which he refers to in the Book of Thoth are but a small part? Intriguing.
Certainly your "higher orders" (?!) giving larger numbers might seem quite promising? The problem has always seemed to be one of compressing the card "data" into the "theory". You don't (after all) have to USE all the possible slots predicted... Hmmm - maybe it infers yet more tarot cards - of which our set is just a part? I'm sure some self-contained, unified system - which had internal consistency would be appreciated!
Anyway, I'm rambling - Nice to be reminded of your stuff though.
Macavity