Talk:4 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
 

Explanation for Line-Removal[edit]

I removed the line

In binary system four is 100.

because it duplicates what is already stated in the Docuan table. PrimeFan 19:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I added 100 mostly because 100 (one hundred) is such a great number :) so it was mostly for fun, if you think it is redundant and meaningless, let it be so. Maximaximax

rm "pointless book"[edit]

i removed

Four also give rise to arguably the most pointless book in the history of publishing, Norman L. De Forest's The Square Root of 4 to a Million Places. [1]

cause I thought it was a pov (though one I agree with). I looked at the book in question, available for download. i can give you a good idea of its contents: after the legalese, it tells you the square root of 4, which is 2.000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 and so on. Numerao 19:48, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another line removal[edit]

I removed the line:

Four is a commune of the Isère département, in France

because I don't see what this has to do with the number 4 at all.

Four has no connotation of the number 4 in French. I suppose if there were somewhere in some French speaking place named Quatre, it would merit mention in the French wikipedia's article on 4. I looked at the French wikipedia article and although they did translate the interesting observation that 4 is the only number which has the same number of letters in its English spelling as its value as:

Quatre (four) est le seul nombre anglais qui, lorsqu'on l'épelle, possède le même nombre de lettres que ce qu'il nomme.

I don't see this a justifying a connection between the French commune and the number 4.

--Rick 14:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The only possible justification I can think of is that maybe some French youngsters might use the number 4 as a shorthand for the town, but this would probably be so confusing as to be useless. So I agree with your edit. PrimeFan 15:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

4 variants[edit]

The Ezh article talks about a picture of a 3 variant that differs from the common 3 variant in that it has a pointed top instead of a rounded top. I added it to 3 (number) just a while ago. Now, does any Wikipedia article talk about a 4 variant in a similar way?? The two 4 variants are the horizontal line variant and the diagonal line variant, classifiying the line that starts at the left of the horizontal line?? Georgia guy 01:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you know[edit]

Four is the only written number in the english language that use the exactly the same amount of letters as the number its spells out.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flying V 666 Clampshell (talkcontribs).

Thanks for that insightful comment. Unfortunately, I already knew that.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanManka (talkcontribs).

That is pretty cool i think that should be mentioned some where in the article.... Tsar Clampshell 13:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. for uses only three letters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.236.33 (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

4 logos[edit]

How many different 4 logos have been used in American television?? There's the Arrow 4 logo and the Sailboat 4 logo, and what else?? Georgia guy 00:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Also the Olympic rings!!!69.143.236.33 17:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Base 4 uses[edit]

Wikipedia is written in base 4!!!! not base 2!! Observe my 64 tildes: 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)69.143.236.33 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Look Ma[edit]

Wikipedia=0mod4, neat! 69.143.236.33 07:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Topless four[edit]

I think it should be mentioned that four is sometimes written without a top, like in seven-segment displays. I don't know where this came from, but I write fours without a top, probably because I was taught that way. Is this specific to the United States? AntiNeo (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The way it's written in seven-segment displays is already mentioned in 4 (number)#Evolution of the glyph. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess I wasn't very clear. I mean hand written without the top. I don't know anyone else who does that, so I'm not sure if it's worth mentioning, but it could be added to the bit about seven-segment displays that this style has found its way into writing.
I was also taught to make my 4s "topless" long before digital 4s existed. NightBear (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymogoly[edit]

Why is there no history of the spelling of "four" ? 80.193.130.5 (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

4[edit]

My favorite number. Four means many things. But why I like it the most, is the horsemen. Can't wait for these badasses to come and kill off the human parasite that plagues this worldFlynn M Taggart (talk) 13:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some things on this page are getting overflowed...I might as well put there "4 is a Wikipedia username". 4 = 2 + 2 05:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages[edit]

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained, or ill-explained, mass deletion[edit]

I reverted User:Knodeltheory's deletion of 14KB and called it "unexplained" though I should have called it ill-explained. Knodeltheory cited Wikipedia:POINTCRUFT which doesn't explain the deletion at all. The Tetrast (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Arabic numeral[edit]

Do you know what I fucking don't like about this shitty page? The number 4 is written as an Arabic numeral. Why? That is so biased against other types of numbers and abstract concepts. Also, what if we were in base 2, there would be no 4. Does it really need its own page? --23:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Arabic numerals are whats used most extensively, there are articles on other numbering systems I believe. Falcon8765 (TALK) 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How many letters does the correct answer to this riddle contain?[edit]

Is it true that "four" is the only number for which the number of letters is itself (in English)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.73.53 (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

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://www.ngcic.org/
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:01:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Four parts of a day[edit]

The article is claiming that there exist four parts of a day namely "dawn, morning, afternoon, night". What happened to dusk? What happened to evening? This particular division is rather arbitrary and not really logical. Firstly, it assumes that morning starts at sunrise, which is arbitrary since some would define it to start at midnight. Secondly, it counts dawn as a "part of the day" but doesn't mention dusk. You'd think that dusk and dawn would be on equal footing. So, five parts—dawn, morning, afternoon, dusk and night—would be more logical. But there's a third problem: dawn (and dusk) are very short, morning (so defined) and afternoon are of reasonable length (about a quarter of a day) and night is quite long (about the length of morning and afternoon combined). So the division is uneven. We could cut dawn out altogether and have three parts (still uneven though): morning, afternoon and night. We could even things up by combining morning and afternoon to get two parts to the day: day and night (though it's only really even at the equinox). We could cut the day up in the other direction: am and pm. We could cut the day in two and in two again in these two ways just mentioned and get morning (am & day), afternoon (pm & day), evening (pm & night) and the other quarter of the day (am & night) which doesn't really have a name (sometimes called "the wee hours"). If the day is to have four parts, this latter division seems to make most sense, only there really is no good name for the first quarter. On the other hand, you might define morning as the period from midnight to midday. This could lead you to a three-part day: morning, afternoon and evening. This could be extended to four parts by throwing in dusk and you'll have a system which makes as much sense as that which you started with. At the end of the day, though, (or at the beginning or middle for that matter) dividing the day up into parts is pretty arbitrary so it makes little sense to claim that there are this or that many parts and here they are. It's time to delete this line. JIMp talk·cont 06:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The 4 parts of the day are: pre-dawn 0:00-06:00, morning 06:00-12:00, afternoon 12:00-18:00, evening 18:00-24:00. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Fish?[edit]

Somebody seems to have inserted the word "fish" into everything in the table on the top right. Somebody might want to fix that. (edit) It was fixed while I wrote this. Nevermind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.128.32.138 (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2013‎ (UTC)

Yup, beat you to it, but thanks anyway! Favonian (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

opening paragraph[edit]

That four is the only number in English with the same amount of letters as its number seems really, very, trivial to mention in the opening of the article. Is there any justifiable significance to this statement? It seems like just an arbitrary factoid. I could come up with some similar facts.. One is the only number with the same amount of syllables as its pronunciation in english. How bout this: one, two, and three each have the same number of consonant letters spelled out as their corresponding number in English. Those are just two facts I thought of that have equal importance to the one stated in the opening of this article. That is, no importance. Dancindazed (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Everything has meaning and the facts that you mentioned should be added to those articles. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Names of numbers[edit]

I think it would be good if Wikipedia could reveal (to whatever extent it can) the history of the number names. Please see a comment in a requested move section of Talk:1 (number) for details. The name four get special attention here because one of the steps it has gone through in becoming what it is is starting with the same sound as five. Georgia guy (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Worthless fact in introduction paragraph[edit]

The introduction paragraph should contain the most important facts about the topic, summarized for ease of reading and quick access. That "four" has four letters is a random coincidence of language development, and pretty much a meaningless bit of trivia. I like fun facts about words and numbers, but I don't think they should be right at the beginning of articles. 47.72.149.154 (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. There Are No Coincidences - there is synchronism, nonlocality, retrocausality, design-and-alignment (book title). Chaos theory states that "there is only an appearance of randomness in chaotic systems". 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Relativity is 4 dimensional: 3D regular space + one-dimensional time[edit]

I tweaked... Special relativity and general relativity treat nature as four-dimensional: 3D regular space and one-dimensional time are treated together and called spacetime. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Baseball, Basketball, and Hockey Championships are best 4-of-7 games[edit]

I added... In American professional baseball, basketball, and hockey, the championships are determined by the team which wins 4 games of a possible 7 games series. 69.180.104.60 (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 4 (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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)