Talk:I Ching divination

message: Ok. My mind must be crumbling. On the two dice method it says you need a D20 and then it splits the D20 based on whether it is even or odd. Is this not the same as the flip of a coin? Wouldn't any die with an equal number of odds and evens work sufficiently well, or a flip of the coin to determine the probabilities of the D8. Essentially the same as one D16 roll? I must be missing something because the point of the D20 is confusing me when it breaks down to a 50/50 split with regards to what happens with the D20 roll.
- My mind must be crumbling too... 2d8 would allow for a range of outcomes from 2 to 16, so there are only 15 possible rolls. I think that changes the probability from the yarrow stalk method. Also, see this page: https://boredzo.org/blog/archives/2020-01-25/probability-distribution-of-multiplied-dice-rolls Some totals are much more likely than the others, with 9 being the most common. Any mathematicians care to comment?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiseiyou (talk • contribs) 18:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Dice Probabilities

message: When the bundle of yarrow stalks is divided in two at random, does that mean that it is divided strictly at random, with every division equally likely, or does that mean it's divided approximately in half, but not exactly (meaning that we ought to use something like a normal distribution)? Can anyone tell us who's seen it done? eritain 22:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: From the book of "The Tao Of I Ching Way to Divination" by Tsung Hwa Jou
On page 68, it describes a different version of coins repersentation.
1. two tails are Yang (----).
2. two heads are Yin  (-- --). 
3. three tails are old Yang moving to Yin (--x--).
4. three heads are old Yin moving to Yang (--o--).
I have been studying the I Ching almost two years now. I found Tsung Hwa Jou's version is more accurate. But this is only my opinion. written by Wen S. Huang
The problem is the picture shows two tail and one head. That is the standard I have seen in most reputable books JEMead (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  second version of coins divination 

message: "Once a hexagram is determined, each line has been determined as either changing (old) or unchanging (young). Since each changing line is seen as being in the process of becoming its opposite, a new hexagram can be formed by transposing each changing yin line with a yang line, and vice versa."
This is somewhat misleading, for two reasons:  
1. The moving line should not be considered merely as "changing into its opposite."  This is true, but by omission the article may be misleading people into thinking that old Yin and old Yang are somehow weaker than their younger counterparts (and that that it why they are changing.)  Actually, the opposite is true. In Taoist philosophy, Yin and Yang cannot exist independently of each other.  Yin that becomes incredibly powerful (incredibly Yin-y) will turn into Yang, and Yang that becomes incredibly powerful (Yang-y), will turn into Yin.  This is an important concept, especially in light of my second point.
2. It is true that the moving line does change into its opposite, and a new hexagram is formed (and must be considered in conjunction with the first.)  However, before this happens, one must first take into consideration the increased power of the "old Yin" or "old Yang" lines.  Before the moving Yang line becomes a (static) Yin line, it is considered to be an exceptionally powerful Yang line.  Thus, the meaning of the original hexagram (not the second hexagram created by reversing the polarity of the moving lines) is reenforced or changed depending on which lines have old Yang or old Yin.  Each changing line adds another section of text.  
For example:
The hexagram of six unbroken lines signifies Qian, the Creative.  According to the Wilhelm/Baynes translation, it reads:
The Creative works sublime success,
Furthering through perseverance.
The movement of heaven is full of power.
Thus the superior man makes himself strong and untiring.
If all the lines are young Yang (unmoving) lines, then that is it.  Without any mitigating context, this is a generally positive, "Rah rah rah! Just do it! Anything is possible!" sort of hexagram.
However, if the top line (which usually signifies the highest reaches of heaven) is old Yang, then we also add this line:
Arrogant dragon will have cause to repent.
This obviously changes the meaning of the message very significantly.  It implies that one has soared so high that they  have lost touch with Earthly reality and may suffer for it.  This meaning was not present in the first example; it is ONLY present if the top line of Qian is old Yang.  (Old Yang lines in different positions yield different meanings such as "Hidden dragon. Do not act." or "Flying dragon over the heavens. It furthers one to see the great man.") 
After we take into account old Yang's or old Yin's increased power, we change it into the young version of its opposite and look up the resulting hexagram.  In this example, it's Guai, Parting/Break-through/Resoluteness, and its text reads:
Break-through.  One must resolutely make the matter known.
At the court of the king.
It must be announced truthfully.  Danger.
It is necessary to notify one's own city.
It does not further to resort to arms.
It furthers one to undertake something.
The lake has risen up to heaven;
The image of Break-through.
Thus the superior man
Dispenses riches downward
And refrains from resting on his virtue.
As I've said before the second hexgram is always composed of young lines only, so we don't get any additional meanings.
I'm editing the article to reflect the added meaning old Yang/Yin lines add before the second hexagram is generated. --Lode Runner 12:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The prose is a little ugly (the entire thing really needs to be rewritten, perhaps with examples), but at least the info's there now.  --Lode Runner 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of moving lines 

message: "The calculation of frequencies (generally believed to be the same as described in the simplified method using 16 objects in this article) using the yarrow stalk method, however, embodies a further error, in the opinion of Andrew Kennedy, author of Briefing Leaders ([2]Gravity Publishing, UK, 2007), which is that of including the selection of zero as a quantity for either hand." 
This sentence makes no sense - it is completely unclear, and has about 6 commas too many. I would clean it up, but there is no way to be clear exactly what the actual meaning of the sentence is. So whoever wrote this, could you perhaps clarify? Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonsense? 

message: ===Violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy===
The entire section on "Zhang Shaizi" appears to be a covert advertisement created by Etsy store owner to sell one of their own innovations. 
The majority of Google search results referencing "Zhang Shaizi" appear after their appearance on Wikipedia in early November 2015. Doing a search from January 1st 1990 to October 31st 2015 only reveals 19 results for that term (in quotations). Of those 19 search results: 15 are from an Etsy store, 2 are from a personal blog, 1 is a link to this page (the main article), and 1 is from Pinterest.
Of the aforementioned 19 search results: The search results from the Etsy store & the personal blog (89% of the search results) are tied to the same username that made the edits in early November 2015; Google's "Zhang Shaizi" as appearing in this article on 3 September 2015 but going over the edit history reveals that "Zhang Shaizi" does not appear in this article until the edits made in early November and should be excluded from analysis bringing the total number of search results down to 18; the Pinterest link has a different username that the remaining 17 search results.
More properly 94% of all the search results for "Zhang Shaizi" prior to it's appearance in this article are tied to a single username that seems to be financially profiting from the edits they have made on Wikipedia; because the evidence is overwhelming to me I'm going to revert/delete that section. I would flag the user for review to see if this is regular pattern of behavior, but I even followed Wikipedia policy by not outing the user (btw the edits are on November 2nd & 3rd)
:Unchallenged five years on, and the whole section is unsourced (the reference to Long Dice was bogus) - deleted. Matruman (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does "Zhang Shaizi" section Violate Wiki Policies? 

message: The entire section on "Zhang Shaizi" appears to be a covert advertisement created by Etsy store owner to sell one of their own innovations. 
The majority of Google search results referencing "Zhang Shaizi" appear after their appearance on Wikipedia in early November 2015. Doing a search from January 1st 1990 to October 31st 2015 only reveals 19 results for that term (in quotations). Of those 19 search results: 15 are from an Etsy store, 2 are from a personal blog, 1 is a link to this page (the main article), and 1 is from Pinterest.
Of the aforementioned 19 search results: The search results from the Etsy store & the personal blog (89% of the search results) are tied to the same username that made the edits in early November 2015; Google's "Zhang Shaizi" as appearing in this article on 3 September 2015 but going over the edit history reveals that "Zhang Shaizi" does not appear in this article until the edits made in early November and should be excluded from analysis bringing the total number of search results down to 18; the Pinterest link has a different username that the remaining 17 search results.
More properly 94% of all the search results for "Zhang Shaizi" prior to it's appearance in this article are tied to a single username that seems to be financially profiting from the edits they have made on Wikipedia; because the evidence is overwhelming to me I'm going to revert/delete that section. I would flag the user for review to see if this is regular pattern of behavior, but I even followed Wikipedia policy by not outing the user (btw the edits are on November 2nd & 3rd)
:Unchallenged five years on, and the whole section is unsourced (the reference to Long Dice was bogus) - deleted. Matruman (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Violation of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy

message: Substituted at 18:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The technical information about different methods of casting other than the basics for yarrow stalks and coins are probably best relegated to a lower section? Also needs some references to back up what is said, and editing to make it comply with the references. Will have a go if no-one objects, and if I remember (lockdown is boring...)Matruman (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested improvements 

message: This method seems simple enough if it's accurate. Should this be added to the page? https://aleadeum.com/2013/07/12/the-i-ching-random-numbers-and-why-you-are-doing-it-wrong/#comment-3832
The method is simple (copied from the comment):
Roll 2d4 dice and see what is the highest number.
 1 is Old Yin (1/16) –– (1,1)
 2 is Old Yang (3/16) –– (1,2)(2,2)(2,1)
 3 is Yang (5/16) –– (1,3)(2,3)(3,3)(3,2)(3,1)
 4 is Yin (7/16) –– (1,4)(2,4)(3,4)(4,4)(4,3)(4,2)(4,1)
Taiseiyou (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible 2d4 method