Talk:142857

This article was nominated for deletion on August 5, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

On 14 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from 142,857 to 142857. The result of the discussion was moved.

Try[edit]

Try 76,923. Multiply it by 2. The sets of digits are not the same. However, look at all the multiples of 76,923 from 76,923*3 to 76,923*12 and it will have something very similar to 142,857. Any other numbers?? 66.32.145.196 00:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That's because 1/13 = 0.076923076923076923.... The period of the reciprocal of any prime has similar properties. 2.25.131.166 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cool Sevenths[edit]

Not sure if this was mentioned in the article but notice... .142857=1/7 Now, let's move the one to the back to get .428571 Hey, isn't that 3/7? Now, let's move the four to the back to get .285714. Hold it. That's 2/7. Get it? Here's the full chart:

.142857=1/7
.428571=3/7
.285714=2/7
.857142=6/7
.571428=4/7
.714285=5/7
98.169.45.99 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found number PI (3,1415) in 142857[edit]

If I multiplicate 0,142857 with 2 exactly 41 times, I receive 3,1414586....^11 and I found, that I can rebuild 0,142857 from 1/7

1/7 = 2/14 <--- 0,_14 1/7 = 4/28 <--- 0,_14_28 1/7 = 8/56 <--- 0,_14_28_56

and if i do the following:

1# divide 9 / 8

2# divide the result / 7

3#
 result / 6 
 result / 5
 result / 4
 result / 3
 result / 2

4# multiplicate the result with 2 , exactly 5 times.

then i receive a term 1/140 = 0,007142857

complete calculation:

1#  9/8  * 1/7 * 1/6 * 1/5  * 1/4 * 1/3 * 1/2

2#  = 9/40320

3# * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2

4# = 288/40320 
   = 1/140

5# 0,007142857

What will be the Factorial of 285714 (i.e. 285784!)[edit]

What will be the Factorial of 285714 (i.e. 285784!) -Unknown It's infinity IE ∞. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.142.63 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very large and no reason for anyone to care.2601:640:4000:3170:F401:BBC:F63D:578 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting number![edit]

Cyclic numbers have very interesting properties, I wonder if anyone is interested in them and uses them as an ID or something? Tyciol 13:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other properties[edit]

Hi. How about:

142857/2 = 71428.5
142857/3 = 47619
142857/4 = 35714.25
142857/5 = 28571.4
142857/6 = 23809.5
142857/7 = 20408.142857...
142857/8 = 17857.125
142857/9 = 15873
142857/11 = 12987
142857/13 = 10989

and

1/142857 = 0.000007
2/142857 = 0.000014
3/142857 = 0.000021
4/142857 = 0.000028
5/142857 = 0.000035
6/142857 = 0.000042
7/142857 = 0.000049

Interesting? ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of Geometrical Construction[edit]

One wonders if possibly the early geometrical constructions were shaped by factors now known to exist, but unknown then. That is, for instance, the difference between the plane constructions (typically on a horizontal table or floor or on a movable object) in contrast with the vertical. The two dimensional table does not present any contradiction in modern physics, but in three dimensional constructions the vertical is relativistically distinct.

For instance, light is gravitationally shifted in frequency and wavelength depending on whether it is rising or falling. The effect is slight and difficult to observe and measure even now, but it did make the third dimension different from the two dimensions of the Euclidean plane. One could not pick up the scribe or rule without changing the state of its relation to the previously drawn figure. That is why the idea of a continuous line appeared in the Rules of Construction. They did not know why that was 'illegal' but it was because raising the writing tool created a space-time interval in which the atmosphere interrupted continuity of the drawn line. The cosmology of the integers, as well as the forms of hands, are all formed in an atmosphere that is 80% nitrogen, atomic number 7, atomic weight 14.

For much of history, carbon was the element of choice for writing and drawing. It still is. The atomic number is six, and it is probably what led to the Star of David symbol. Silicon is an emerging element in information technology. To construct a "Star of Silicon" with silicon's atomic number of 14, a fourteen pointed star is necessary. Calculation of the angle between fourteen equidistant points on the circumference of a circle results in 360/14 = 25.714285714285714285714285714286, containing the repeating sequence 142857. Is 14 silicon's atomic number, or nitrogen's atomic weight? SyntheticET (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4870/is_200508/ai_n17913296
- In 142857 (number) on 2011-05-23 03:02:00, 404 This requested article does not exist.
- In 142857 (number) on 2011-06-01 15:31:06, 404 This requested article does not exist.

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22/7 as π[edit]

"...also known within this ellipse of practitioners"? 24.43.110.123 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mediogegnians"[edit]

The section about Pi as 22/7 mentions the "Mediogegnians". I am fairly familiar with Kabbalistic literature and have never heard this term. And a websearch reveals nothing but mirrors of this article. There is no citation. If noone can provide a reference for this statement/term, I'd like to go ahead and delete that whole section.Ms408 (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other bases[edit]

The examples in other bases are still using 7. That section should say whether 7 must be used. If it needn't, then perhaps one of the examples should use something else. If it must, then a mathematical explanation why would be good. -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) —Guan aco 01:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

142857 (number) → 142857 – Unnecessary number dab. See 100,000. Fish567 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest 142,857 as the new title. For numbers which are clearly not a year, we seem to be moving from the old convention that number pages were called 1234 (number), with plain 1234 reserved for the year, to a title with commas per MOS:DIGITS. Certes (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support move to 142,857 (with commas) as suggested above. V2Blast (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 142857 (number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by page mover) Brad v 01:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

142,857 → 142857 – This article is about the series of digits "142857", not just the number one hundred and forty two thousand eight hundred and fifty seven. For example, there's a section covering 1/7=0.142857142857142857... As such, it shouldn't be treated as just a number, with a comma separator per MOS:DIGITS. No one is going to confuse this with a year. Paul_012 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Fish567, Certes and V2Blast from the previous discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Too large to be a date, about repeating digits not a number. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we feel that the page is mainly about a sequence of digits, rather than an integer, then let's remove the comma. But I think that confusion with dates is a red herring: this format was favoured in Talk:9,223,372,036,854,775,807#Requested move 21 June 2017 and similar cases which are clearly integers rather than years. Certes (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / Comment - Yeah, I'm with Certes on this one. Until further discussion is had, I oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talk • contribs) 15:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the other examples are clearly integers, and not affected by this request, I think this is the proper place for discussion? Just disregard the arguments about confusion with years. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is the correct approach per MOS:DIGITS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is mainly about a series of repeating digits instead of a number. feminist (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Something interesting[edit]

As of 2018-12-06, 142857 is the largest integer with its own wikipedia page which is neither a power of 2 nor a multiple of 10. This is excluding "large integers" such as Graham's number or "largest known prime number", but I feel they shouldn't count in spirit as they are only ever referenced to by some other name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frosted butts (talk • contribs) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT[edit]

The page 142857 was edited to avoid misleading.

Evidence: "3A6LDH" before, "3A6KDH" after.

Do not block from editing and appreciate my IQ. 2404:3C00:502F:4C80:8531:5CD7:8407:C0FC (talk) 04:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 24⁶ − 17 = 27300425 is indeed 3A6KDH. Certes (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 October 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

142,857 → 142857 – Despite the previous RMs, the fact still stands that the topic is not (or should not be) about the integer one hundred and forty two thousand eight hundred and fifty seven but about the repeating number sequence, which may appear as 0.142857142857..., 71.4285714285..., 857.142857142..., etc. The 2018 RM saw IMO some confused !votes which misunderstood the issue. Certes said, "If we feel that the page is mainly about a sequence of digits, rather than an integer, then let's remove the comma", which I read as partial/conditional support, while noting that comparison with dates should be irrelevant (which I agree with). But Paintspot then !voted oppose, citing agreement with Certes, when Certes had not voiced any direct opposition. The only other oppose, by 力, cited MOS:DIGITS without addressing the main concern, why and whether the subject should be treated as an integer. Also pinging previous participants Galobtter and Feminist, and I'll also post to the Numbers and Mathematics WikiProjects in hope of gaining more input this time. Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This number has only one notable property. So, per WP:NUMBER#Integers, it should not have a specific article. Moreover, its content is included in Cyclic number. So, both 142,857 and 142857 must be redirects to Cyclic number. D.Lazard (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the nominator's rationale, since the article does seem to be about a sequence rather than specifically an integer. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia articles titled as numbers over 100 without dis-ambiguation suffixes are normally for years, and this year is way too far off in the future. No notable event that I understand is expected to happen so far off. Not the expiration of the copyright of 2022 information, not the death of Barack Obama, not even the time when the Julian and Gregorian calendars are a full year apart (we need March 1 48901, which is March 1 48900 in the Julian calendar, for that event.) This article should be at 142857 (number). Georgia guy (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is not about the number one-hundred-forty-two-thousand-eight-hundred-fifty-seven, but rather about that sequence of six digits. By one standard that is in fact out there in the world, that would mean that the title should be 1, 4, 2, 8, 5, 7, but I wonder whether that would raise too many eyebrows, perhaps especially among those who are ignorant of the significance of this sequence and who do not know that there is anything about it to be ignorant of. People who don't remember learning the significance of this sequence when they were twelve or thirteen years old are numerous and walk through the same public squares as the rest of us and look just like normal people. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox[edit]

Per the above, I suggest removing the Number infobox from the top of the article, since it misrepresents the focus of the article as an integer, which should not be the case. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is about the sequence of digits, the notation of sequences must be used; that is, the article should be renamed (1, 4, 2, 8, 5, 7). This would be ridiculous. So, the article is about the property of the digits of a number. Thus, the infobox must be kept if its title remains a number. D.Lazard (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As we write integers over 9999 using commas, an article called 142857 (no comma) must logically be about the digit sequence rather than the integer. Most of the infobox is therefore not relevant, though the list of divisors gives useful insights as to why the sequence is cyclic. Another question: do we remove from Category:Integers? Is there any other relevant category, or is this article sui generis? Certes (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]