Talk:King Wen sequence

"Cracked"

A Code Cracked by C.J.Lofting There is no "solution" to the King Wen Sequence here.

That page confuses me, so it could be a hoax. To "crack" has many meanings, just like "hack". In this case, it means trying to figure out something, even if it doesn't seem to be a riddle, even if it doesn't seem to need solving or decyphering. He mentions the traditional sequence is "1,43,14,34,9,5,26,11", which "seemingly" has nothing to do with binary, but then goes into how the numbering is logical - which is really long that I can't explain or shorten... Well, here is two quotes:

"From this process I have been able to determine that the traditional sequence reflects ALCHEMY with a distinct semantic emphasis on PURE - MIXED"

"Since the moon is also seasonal (as in four to eight phases are used to identify the cycle) so its cycle will map into the I Ching (note that the 384 lines = number of days in a lunar year (13 months))" {sjöar}

Agreed, I removed A Code Cracked and the two other external links to Mr. Lofting's work.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ancient 384 day calendar" disputed

http://selmarie.com/jackrabbit Explication of the I Ching Portions of The Invisible Landscape by Terence and Dennis McKenna, by Dicky Zyetz (a.k.a. Jack Rabbit ?) thoroughly exposits the notion of a 384 day calendar. J Shirk (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I love this line:

Terence McKenna's work attracted me many years ago because his amazing mixture of brilliance and blarney was sometimes informative, sometimes opaque, but usually highly entertaining.

I don't think this article is the right place so I removed the "ancient Lunar Calendar" stuff. Cool link, thx—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Why"

"There are no instances in which five lines change" this is worth further explanation. Would some kind mathematician expand this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethargicandstupid (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No math required: the sequence was chosen in regard to invertible hexagram pairs and no instance of 5–line–differing pairs just–so–happens to appear in that sequence.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't "just so happen" - it's guaranteed by the rules of the arrangement. A hexagram abcdef is paired with its reverse fedcba, unless it is a palindrome abccba in which case all six lines change. Suppose it isn't a palindrome. Then going from abcdef to fedcba, we have a changing to f and also f changing to a; b changing to e and also e changing to b; and c changing to d and also d changing to c. Note that all those changes happen in pairs. If a is unequal to d, then we have two changes there (a to d and d to a). If b is unequal to e, we have two changes there; and if c is unequal to d, two more. The changes always happen in twos; as long as we're pairing hexagrams this way, the number of changes must always be even. There are odd numbers of changes outside of the pairings, for instance between hexagrams 62 and 63. 99.234.64.72 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Supposing it didn't "just so happen" to be arranged in invertible pairs... which, it would seem, non-obviously precludes the possibility.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to say the original poster's question was trivial... For example: if the sequence were 9,10 then 1,2 there would be a 5 diff.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathematical structure

A number of articles on the internet reveal more clear mathematical structures in the KW sequence.

I propose to add a few lines about it under the Notable Characteristics header, and add them as cite "Notes". The article needs more footnotes to become better.

Suggested additions:

"The number of possible different arrangements of the 32 partner pairs is 32! = 2.63 * 10^35 .
There is clear evidence for a mathematical structure in the sequence. Several clusters of hexagrams point to a careful arrangement rather than a random distribution. .
The placement of certain hexagrams also suggests that the geography of China, as traversed from North to South, may have served as a model for the King Wen sequence "

Notes

--MakeSense64 (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Wen sequence. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080125095543/http://www.levity.com/eschaton/waveexplain.html to http://www.levity.com/eschaton/waveexplain.html

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) 08:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

why this sequence

just ask the I ching. i did. it gave me the 3rd hexagram, the indicator of the King Wen sequence. so IT gave US the sequence for a reason. just saying. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong image associated with hexagram 26 in King Wen sequence

File:Iching-hexagram-26.svg shows instead hexagram number 5. It is clear there is an error because no hexagram should be duplicated in the sequence. Looking at the history of that file, it has twice been changed and the current change is not correct. But if you click on the link provided for 26 you get to the description of the correct hexagram. i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hexagrams_of_the_I_Ching#Hexagram_26 But notice that the larger hexagram on the right of the page is in fact hexagram 5. It seems to be a simple error in the .svg but I am not sure how to edit this to fix it. Suggestions? thanks folks, I am new here so be gentle here. Actually I am not new, just very inexperienced at editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Fairtlough (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

30 / 34 Split

I see no logic in explaining the 30 /34 split as: " 8 hexagrams are the same when turned upside down and the other 56 present a different hexagram if inverted. This allows the hexagrams to be displayed succinctly in two equal columns or rows of 18 unique hexagrams each; half of the 56 invertible hexagrams plus the 8 non-invertible." Charles Juvon (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Consider inserting this figure

Click the image and follow the link to Commons for a full description.

Charles Juvon (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)