# Talk:142,857

(Redirected from Talk:142857 (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.

## Try

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)

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)

## 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:

.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)

## 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
```

complete calculation:

```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
```
```5# 0,007142857
```

## What will be the Factorial of 285714 (i.e. 285784!)

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)

## 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)

## Other properties

```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)

## 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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

## 22/7 as π

"...also known within this ellipse of practitioners"? 24.43.110.123 (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

## "Mediogegnians"

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)

## Other bases

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)

## Requested move 13 June 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (closed by page mover)Guanaco 01:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

142857 (number)142857 – Unnecessary number dab. See 100,000. Fish567 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I suggest 142,857 as the new title. For numbers which are clearly not a year, we seem to be moving from the old convention that number pages were called 1234 (number), with plain 1234 reserved for the year, to a title with commas per MOS:DIGITS. Certes (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support move to 142,857 (with commas) as suggested above. V2Blast (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the `|checked=`, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting `|needhelp=` to your help request.

• 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set `|needhelp=<your help request>` on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 03:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

## Requested move 15 January 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by page mover) Bradv 01:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

142,857142857 – This article is about the series of digits "142857", not just the number one hundred and forty two thousand eight hundred and fifty seven. For example, there's a section covering 1/7=0.142857142857142857... As such, it shouldn't be treated as just a number, with a comma separator per MOS:DIGITS. No one is going to confuse this with a year. Paul_012 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Fish567, Certes and V2Blast from the previous discussion. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Too large to be a date, about repeating digits not a number. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment If we feel that the page is mainly about a sequence of digits, rather than an integer, then let's remove the comma. But I think that confusion with dates is a red herring: this format was favoured in Talk:9,223,372,036,854,775,807#Requested move 21 June 2017 and similar cases which are clearly integers rather than years. Certes (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose / Comment - Yeah, I'm with Certes on this one. Until further discussion is had, I oppose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paintspot (talkcontribs) 15:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Since the other examples are clearly integers, and not affected by this request, I think this is the proper place for discussion? Just disregard the arguments about confusion with years. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I think this is the correct approach per MOS:DIGITS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support because this is mainly about a series of repeating digits instead of a number. feminist (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.