Talk:142857

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Try

message: 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)
thread_title: The Cool Sevenths

message: 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)
replies: text: Very large and no reason for anyone to care.2601:640:4000:3170:F401:BBC:F63D:578 (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: What will be the Factorial of 285714 (i.e. 285784!)

message: 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)
thread_title: Very interesting number!

message: 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? ~AH1(TCU) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other properties 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins of Geometrical Construction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: "...also known within this ellipse of practitioners"? 24.43.110.123 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  22/7 as π 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Mediogegnians" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other bases 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929122525/http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/cyclic_number.html to http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/cyclic_number.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714114415/http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/CyclicNumber.html to http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/CyclicNumber.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something interesting 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you.   = 27300425 is indeed 3A6KDH. Certes (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  EDIT 

message: :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)
replies: text: 142,857 →  – 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 October 2022 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox