# Talk:700 (number)

WikiProject Numbers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

## 700s

In accordance with a sensible procedure practiced by User:GUllman, the articles for the numbers 701 to 799 will be 'grown' here in the article on 700 until they are big enough to merit their own articles. Once that happens, a new page is created for the number in question, linking back to this page, and this page is changed to indicate that the number now has its own article. PrimeFan

## 777 is Jesus's number?

777 = 3 × 7 × 37, sphenic number, sometimes said to be the number of Jesus because it's three sevens together

I downloaded a Bible from Project Gutenberg and searched in it for "777", "seven hundred and seventy-seven", "seventy-seven and seven hundred" and a few other permutations and found nothing. On the other hand, "seven times seven" (which is 49) occurs a lot in the Bible, and occasionally other powers of 7. So if we can't find any basis for 777 being Jesus's number, then the statement ought to be removed. PrimeFan 22:41, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

According to Hebrew tradition, the number 7 represents completeness and perfection. The number 3 has similar properties. Therefore, stringing 3 7's together creates a sort of uber-perfect number. Hence the origin, in my understanding. Starsquare16 18:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

## 888 is actually Jesus's number

If you add up the numeric value the greek letters of Jesus's name you get 888 and his name appears 888 times in the New Testament. 8 is the number of new and is one more than 7 (# of completion).

Hm, interesting. At what theological conference was this tidbit first brought up and what was the name of the theologian bringing it up? PrimeFan 22:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, how did you get that? I checked with two diferent Swedish Bibles online, and the closest result I got was 787 hits on Jesus... give us a proof, and the link to the searchengine you use. Adville (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

## Triangular numbers

780 and 990 are the fourth smallest pair of triangular numbers whose sum and difference are also triangular numbers.

The three smaller pairs are:

15 (T5) and 21 (T6) - sum is 36 (T8) and diff is 15 (T3)

105 (T14)and 171 (T18) - sum is 276 (T23) and diff is 66 (T11)

378 (T27)and 703(T37) - sum is 1081 (T46) and diff is 325 (T25)

Cje (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. Considering it's the fourth case of a minor curio, and only works together with a number outside the page range 700-799, I don't think it's worth mentioning. I computed the pairs below 10 million: (15, 21), (105, 171), (378, 703), (780, 990), (1485, 4186), (2145, 3741), (5460, 6786), (7875, 8778), (21945, 38781), (29403, 30628), (37950, 219453), (61425, 203203), (61425, 416328), (70125, 77028), (105570, 188191), (176715, 1505980), (246753, 2349028), (255255, 318801), (306153, 359128), (353220, 1342341), (514605, 3744216), (522753, 928203), (635628, 7478778), (667590, 678030), (749700, 763230), (749700, 3219453), (794430, 2795430), (812175, 10367181), (1016025, 1023165), (1445850, 2114596), (1471470, 1983036), (1747515, 2185095), (2953665, 6049981), (3499335, 4928230), (4680270, 21128250), (5073705, 7036876), (5502903, 9779253), (7351695, 20425636), (8382465, 9238551).
780 doesn't appear to stand out in any way, and 703 is also within the page range. 61425 would be more interesting as the first to be part of two pairs. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with you removing this point! As you say "fourth case of a minor curio", but that's better than the original incorrect claim (that 780 and 990 are the second such pair). Cje (talk) 10:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

## Split off disambigs

The disambigs for 700 and 797 should be split off onto their own articles. 70.49.125.226 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the additional material for 797, as undue weight here, and mostly undue weight or incorrect even in an article specifically about 797. I oppose the split for 700, but there, at least, the split article might be somewhat appropriate. I don't see the need for it, but I can see that others may differ. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
In case a disambiguation page is wanted (not sure why), a split of this article is not needed. I have therefore removed the template. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)