|This page was nominated for deletion on August 5, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.|
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?? 188.8.131.52 00:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- That's because 1/13 = 0.076923076923076923.... The period of the reciprocal of any prime has similar properties. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
The Cool Sevenths
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:
Found number PI (3,1415) in 142857
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
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
What will be the Factorial of 285714 (i.e. 285784!)
Very interesting number!
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)
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
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
Origins of Geometrical Construction
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)
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!
22/7 as π
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)