# Talk:7 (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.

## Fixed shape

The largest number of sticks (or other cylindrical objects) that can be tied into a bundle such that the shape of the bundle remains fixed.

Can someone give a reference to the correctness of this claim?

## Successor?

Seven is not the seventh successor of one. That privilege goes to eight. Sigfpe 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In U.S. Marine Corps folklore, the rank E-7, Gunnery Sergeant, is considered lucky. A "gunny" can't get in trouble with his superiors for anything. That changes as soon as he's promoted. 141.217.41.206 17:06, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

## Digital display

Also 6 (number) has two representations in digital displays, with a top bar or not.

This claim was briefly on the 7 (number) page, but was reverted. If it is a fact (I don't know for sure), it should be on the 6 (number) page too, and the 7 (number) page should not claim that 7 is the only number with two glyphs.--Niels Ø 21:16, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I tried to post to this page immediately after I reverted the article, but Wikipedia suffered a glitch.
Anyway, I wouldn't mind being proven wrong on this. Tell me which brands of products with LCD displays use the variant 6, or show me pictures. I have never seen the variant 6. As far as I know today, 6 has only one LCD glyph, crudely shown below. PrimeFan 22:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 _
|
-
| |
-


I guess you are right.--Niels Ø 22:56, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
I can't remember where I have seen such a thing, but I found Calculator Memories from Argentina:
About mid 1972, I read an article in Popular Mechanics magazine, featuring several four function pocket calculators. I recall a Canon unit, and the Casio Mini 6, which had a six-digits green display and a "right arrow" key that shifted the contents of the display to show six more digits. LED and Fluorescent displays were usual (no LCD yet), and NiCd batteries were almost mandatory. Some models sported modified seven–segment patterns to make the digits recognizable, even when a segment fails. The picture
Versions of 0 , 6 and 7 used to make the patterns for all 10 digits to differ on more than a single segment.
I can imagine an alternate 1 on the left vertical, but am not sure if it is real.
So I'd remove the claim and put the alternate forms in the article for seven-segment display if we have one.
I stand corrected. I will edit the articles on 0, 6 and 7 accordingly. PrimeFan 17:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is a reason why the alternate 0 and 6 haven't caught on. Alt 0 looks like a lowercase O, and alternate 6 looks like a lowercase B. Anton Mravcek 19:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also from a electrical technician point-of-view it might cause problems working on a machine if the machine uses characters as well as numbers to define a problem with a system (hint: reasons why a BCD chip goes hand-in-hand with the 7-segment display the way it does for complete function.) If letters are represented it may be harder to troubleshoot without those rules. BCD: 0110 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.21.203 (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

<3:

In the South West, there are six sevens in a standard pack of playing cards.

## Coven

I have deleted the following as it appears inaccurate:

As far as I can make out the usual number for a coven is considered to be 13.

MikeRM 02:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In white magic, 7 is the coven number. 13 is black magic.

## Seven of Nine

How come no one thought to mention Seven of Nine?

^^No ones as much of a Trekie :P (good humor meant)

(RuSTy1989 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

## Other uses

I have just removed a half-dozen instances of seven things showing up in video games, movies, what-have-you, because seven is such an common number that the list could be extended almost indefinitely. Obviously this is a judgement call, but such instances need to be limited to *very* widely known and/or long-held collections, and not include every time a fantasy book writes about seven shimmering crystals, or every time a horror movie has seven tasks before the teenagers die, or the like. - DavidWBrooks 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

## Usage of Seven in Bungie

Thank you for noticing. I have corrected this, but DavidWBrooks keeps reverted it back, and thus deleting my edit. Daniel (talk)
Because it's so vague as to be meaningless: "the number seven appears numerous times, having significant meanings." - holy cow, you could say that about half the works in the Western canon - except for 3, 7 is the most common "significant" number in literature; it shows up all over the place. If you can't think of anything more interesting to say than that, it's not going to survive in an article that's already groaning from overload. - DavidWBrooks 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll admit that my entry needs to be more fleshed out. But you cannot deny that Marathon, along with corresponding Bungie games, do use the number seven numerous times giving a meaning to the game stories. However, your attitude towards this is the possibly most important thing that needs improving.. hmm? Daniel (talk)
Come on - the number seven appears "numerous times" and "gives meaning" in a TON of games, a TON of movies, a TON of books, a TON of folk stories, a TON of mythologies. Find seven crystals, slay seven dragons, talk to seven wizards, marry seven wives, visit seven islands, perform seven tasks - it's all over the place in Western culture. I'm not saying 7 isn't significant in Marathon, I'm saying that fact isn't significant in this article: nobody is going to come to an article about the number 7 to find out more about game play in one computer game. Please don't load down this overloaded article with that again; work on the article itself, or related articles, instead of something as peripheral as this, please. - DavidWBrooks 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Then you wouldnt object to me removing the "peripheral" and pointless entry about Final Fantasy 7? Surely, that a mere mention of a characters bar and that title being the most popular in the series is MORE important then a game where the number seven is linked so much into the storyline that it does have meaning? Daniel (talk)

No, I think you're right: the Final Fantasy mention was peripheral, too. Well done. - DavidWBrooks 17:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows Bungie or their games (especially Halo) knows that Bungie takes their love of seven to a different level. Also, if Harry Potter gets its own section (which I don't think it should), then Bungie, or at least Halo should get a spot.

Take a look 75.68.127.52 (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

## 7 Varients

I've always "drawn" my sevens like this....


_ _ _
|
|
-------
|
|
|



With a dash through the middle. This doesnt get a mention. I do belive it is something european? Anyone know anything about it? (If its there just ignore this)

(RuSTy1989 23:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC))

I was about to make a comment on this very subject. I think it does deserve a mention that 7 can often be written that way. I think it is mostly common when addressing letters, so that the postal service can easily differentiate between 1 and 7. Davez621 16:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a European thing, Germany, Scandinavia, Iceland and even large parts of England (especially the North) write seven with a stroke through it.

It goes hand-in-hand with writing 1 with an elongated serif (this makes it look like a 7 written without the crossbar). Mooncow 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It's also very common here in New England, USA. xmzx 22:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
from an engineers point-of-perspective as to not get the number seven confused with anything else when writing down ideas they simply put a line through it to give definition of top and bottom of the number for example: numbers written on certain billiards balls (hint the difference between 9 and 6). Different rules apply for different job titles not necessarily Engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.21.203 (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

## other numerations.

¿why are equivalences on hebrew and not the transcription of number 7 on arab numeration or chinesse or japanesse?

## Horizontal stroke

This is analogous to the horizontal stroke through the middle that is sometimes used in handwriting in the Western world This needs more information. I used to see this form a lot in Germany,bhghbbh hbhbhybg gbhgbyhb but almost never in the U.S. It would be interesting to find where this variation came from. -Rolypolyman 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the cross-stroke variation derived, but I believe it's only really common in continental Europe and throughout Latin America. Among North Americans, the horizontal stroke is rare and seems to be used by those who became familiar with it in the aforementioned locales. Its purpose is definitely to differentiate 7s from 1s; in Europe and Latin America, 1s tend to be written with longer diagonal strokes attached to the main stem than the shorter nearly-horizontal ones North Americans are accustomed to, so 7s without cross-strokes will be easily mistaken in Europe and Latin America for 1s. For the same reason, Zs are also written with cross-strokes to differentiate them from 2s. Smallfixer 01:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That is perfectly described and completely correct. Nice one Smallfixer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.200.229 (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

### Horizontal stroke vs. Chinese

Dudes, "7" + "-" looks like an upside-down Chinese 7: 七 ! Please make a note of it. Jidanni (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Yes But the origin has nothing to do with that in fact the Chinese characters were initially compounded from single strokes using a brush and paint mixture. (Hint: each stroke has specific definition and a meaning or purpose.) The Chinese form is simply coincidence it was not planned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.120.21.203 (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

### Horizontal stroke vs. Unicode

Please mention if "7" + "-" is available in Unicode, or how to make such an overprint via compounding characters or something.

Maybe the best one can do is with <strike>7</strike>: 7? Jidanni (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the Radix 7 table switches to Radix 8 one-eighth the way through? 70.43.51.228 21:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

## Religion part

I strongly object that Hindusim is included in mythology instead of religion. Like Judaism, Christianity and Islam, references from Hinduism should also be included under religion instead of mythology.

## Not quite right

In the Astronomy section, an entry states that seven is "the number of stars in the constellation of Ursa major." This is not really accurate. Ursa major has several more stars than just seven. I'm sure this is a reference to the number of stars in the asterism known in North America as the Big Dipper, which is only a relatively small part of Ursa major (the Big Bear). Smallfixer 03:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

## Dice

I removed the following entry under "In other fields":

On a pair of dice, while all combinations of numbers (2 through 12) are equally probable, any one die can combine with the figure of a second die to produce the number 7. For example, if you roll a 1, you can still roll a 6 with the other die to make a total of 7, and so on for each number. This is the only number capable of doing this. (go me for adding this!)

My understanding is that all combinations of numbers are not equally probable, and that 7 is the most likely result. This is mentioned in another entry under the "Seven is also" heading. Also, what's the difference between the "In other fields" and "Sevin is also" headings? Trolleytimes 09:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

## Use in "random" numbers

I'm not sure where you'd go for evidence to support this theory, but it seems to be a common trend that whenever a writer (of a song, screenplay, novel, whatever) needs to use a number whose actual value is irrelevant to the plot (e.g. a phone number, a model number for a spaceship or other vessel, a random number thrown off the top of somebody's head, etc.), the digit '7' appears far more often than any other digit. My guess is it has something to do with the fact that it's the only 2-syllable digit in English, and it sounds more "numbery" than other numbers. Notable examples:

• James Bond's agent number is 007. Flemming could just as easily have chosen 006 or 008, and it would have had no bearing on the character, but 007 is what he chose.
• The Starship Enterprise on Star Trek has always had NCC-1701 (followed by a generation letter) as its ship number.
• Weird Al Yankovic frequently uses the number 27 in random locations in his songs, videos, and album covers.
• The Beagle Boys from Disney's Scrooge McDuck universe all have prisoner number-tags containing 7's. (And 1's and 6's, and no other digits.)

Other examples are mostly isolated, but the number does seem to turn up far more frequently as a "doesn't matter" number than any other digit. Anybody know a way to document this that doesn't look like it's just original research? Lurlock 05:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

## Perfect according to...?

I am removing the assumption that 7 is the perfect number according to the Bible. If someone can give a good reason as to why this is stated, feel free to smack my hand. I understand that this is considered the "perfect" number to many people in the Christian faith (including me) but unless I am wrong the Bible never actually says that the number is perfect. Anyone know if it actually does?Delusional 1 10:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

## Names and Titles

I removed the claim that 7 is the number of times a piece of paper can be folded from the Names and Titles section. Even if true, it doesn't belong in Names and Titles. And it is not particularly true: the number of times a piece of paper can be folded depends on the thickness of paper, type of material and type of folds made. Successful foldings of up to twelve times have been accomplished. Seven might be one version of a "folk wisdom" claim about how many times paper can be folded, but I've found references to eight times in the same context, so I don't think this is a useful or reliable comment to make about seven. Mooncow 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This claim was recently refuted on an episode of Mythbusters. Of course, they used a piece of paper the size of an aircraft hangar along with a steam-roller and forklift to do the last couple folds, but whatever. It might be worth noting that this popular claim was recently featured on the show, however. Lurlock 16:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

## Sequences

1/(1/999+1/999^2+1/999^3+1/999^4+1/999^5+1/999^6+1/999^6+1/999^7+1/999^8+1/999^9+1/999^10..........infinity)=99800000........... since 1/998=0.00100200400801603206412825651302605210420841683366733466933867735470941883768..................................... and the half of 998 equals 499 the square of seven equals 49. ex:

   1/999991=0.00000100000900008100072900656105904953144578301204710842397581578234204107836971.........  multiple of nine
1/999992=0.00000100000800006400051200409603276826214609716877735021880175041400331202649621.........  multiple of eight
1/999993=0.00000100000700004900034300240101680711764982354876484135388947722634058438409069.........  multiple of seven
1/999994=0.00000100000600003600021600129600777604665627993767962607775646653879923279539677.........  multiple of six
1/999995=0.00000100000500002500012500062500312501562507812539062695313476567382836914184571.........  multiple of five
1/999996=0.00000100000400001600006400025600102400409601638406553626214504858019432077728311.........  multiple of four
1/999997=0.00000100000300000900002700008100024300072900218700656101968305904917714753144259.........  multiple of three
1/999998=0.00000100000200000400000800001600003200006400012800025600051200102400204800409601.........  multiple of two
1/999999=0.000001000001000001000001000001000001000001000001000001000001000001000001000001...........  multiple of one


## Seventh Son

Does anyone know the context of "seventh son of a seventh son" and why it appears as some kind of mystical sign in various areas of literature?

Here is one reference. But, not much help--P Todd (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

## Divisibility Rule

Why don't you use this method then?
To test if (abc...yz)10 is divisible by 7, do instead abc...y - 2z, which will be a smaller multiple of 7. Repeat until it is trivial.
I can't find backups for your method anywhere. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 11:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

## Eternalism??

I'm wondering if the "Eternalism" section under "Religion" is vandalization, or perhaps someone's pet religion that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The link "Eternalism" leads to a disambiguation page that points to a philosophy of time, a subset of paradoxology, and a sect of buddhism, none of which have anything to do with "Godzimir" or any of the other things listed under "Eternalism" in this article. In fact, searching Wikipedia for "Godzimir" only brings up this article and an article on a Polish lawyer. Does anyone have any further information which justifies its inclusion? I'm going to "fact" tag it for now. Luvcraft 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section as uncited. If anyone can add citations, feel free to put it back. Doctormatt 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

## David

From the article: "David was the eighth son of Jesse."

What does this have to do with the number 7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.126.132.70 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

## Indian

The infobox shows how the number 7 looks like in the Indian language. There is no such language. You might mean Devanāgarī, the script that Hindi and some other Indian languages are written in, but that has already been mentioned. akarkera (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This could be the missing "Arabic" entry that is seen on other numeral pages. 192.35.17.10 (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

## 7 Chakra points

There are 7 chakra points of the body. Maybe that can be included. --Condalence] 23:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

## Electronic Colour Code

7 is represented by Violet in the Electronic color code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.216.145 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

## new item?

Number Seven, Queer Street
The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two

Do this two items qualify for incorporation into the article?Nono64 (talk) 08:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

## Redundant Example

Is it necessary to have the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World listed twice? It's listed under both 7 (number)#In the classical world and 7 (number)#In other fields. I'm not sure which section to remove it from. Thoughts? Cheers, Wrelwser43 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

## citation needed

Do we honestly need a citation for "7 (seven) is the natural number following 6 and preceding 8"? What kind of citation are you looking for here anyways? 68.106.217.181 (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed [1] the unnecessary citation request. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

## Call of Duty's 7 Significance?

"In the Call of Duty franchise, it is the standard maximum number of rounds in a Search & Destroy and Hardcore Search & Destroy scenario."

Not to be picky or anything, but I play CoD and I don't believe that 7 rounds of S&D has any significance. You don't have to play 7 rounds. It's just like hockey and baseball etc. playoffs where it's the best of 7. Also, I'm pretty sure that 7 doesn't appear prevalently anywhere else?

So perhaps it should be taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.76.51 (talk) 02:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

## Mess-up on 2nd section of article "Evolution of the Glyph"

Somebody has messed up the image of the evolution of the glyph so that the text stands right next to it on the right. Can someone fix this up? --121.7.203.64 (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

CORRECTION ON THE ARTICLE ON 7 " Therefore when a vulgar fractionwith 7 denominator is convertedto a decimal fraction----". This is is now disproven , 19 does this better in all divisions by 19 and including dividing this divisions by 2 by two, YET Wikipedia does not say this about 19 example 5/19=0.2 6315789473684210526 2/19=0. 6315789473684210526. So current mathematics is wrong and Wikipedia is wrong in missing out this information on 19. The reason is that these both are unique primes(-1the prime is divisible by 3 to another prime), nothing to do with 999999. Cannot say more , the Wikipedia dog police will ban me from correcting the truth as they did before. Your potrayal of 19 is a disgrace to mathematics, and is the focus of challenge to American Mathematical society that many of your Mathematical artiicles are full of baloney.--71.98.63.98 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)--71.98.63.98 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

## Non-free images removed

In line with WP:NFCC#8, I have removed a bunch of non-free images from this article. Non-free images are used when the identify the topic of the article (in this case, the number 7) or when they significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic. These images, while obviously related to the number 7, did not meet the higher bar of WP:NFCC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

## Judaism vs. Christianity

Why are the following items listed under Christianity rather than Judaism?

Seven years of plenty and seven years of famine in Pharaoh's dream (Genesis 41)
Seven days of the feast of Passover (Exodus 13:3-10)
Seven day week and the pattern concerning distribution and use of manna (Exodus 16)
Seven year cycle around the years of Jubilee (Leviticus 25)
The fall of the walls of Jericho on the seventh day after marching around the city seven times (Joshua 6)
Seven things the LORD hates (Proverbs 6:16-19)

Weren't these items associated with Judaism long before Christianity since it is the older religion and since Christianity grew out of Judaism? "Seven days of Creation (Genesis 1). God rested on and sanctified the seventh day (Sabbath)" is essentially listed under both religions. Poldy Bloom (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

## Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

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

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

## Which three integers squared?

"Seven is the lowest number which cannot be represented as the sum of the squares of three integers." So, which three integers?--P Todd (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You should re-read your question. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I got an excellent belly laugh out of that. I racked my mind for (I'll keep private how long) trying to figure out which integers "can". Thank you. Darn, now I almost wish I had figured it out!--P Todd (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What's actually worse about this little factoid, is that it isn't true. 4 cannot be represented as the sum of three integer squares either. This is not trivial, since 3 can: 1+1+1. Moreover, 5 cannot either, 6 can (1+1+4), 7 cannot, 8 cannot, 9 can, etc. This is a highly non-trivial property of numbers. --Czigi (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

4 = 22 + 02 + 02, although perhaps it should be written "...cannot be represented as the sum of the squares of three (or fewer) integers". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's actually not true after all. Neither non-integers nor negative numbers can be represented as the sum of the squares of integers. So it'd be "Seven is the lowest natural number which cannot be represented as the sum of the squares of three integers." or, if you reckon allowing zero is cheating (or too trivial) "... three or fewer positive integers."
0 = 02 + 02 + 02
1 = 12 + 02 + 02
2 = 12 + 12 + 02
3 = 12 + 12 + 12
4 = 22 + 02 + 02
5 = 22 + 12 + 12
6 = 22 + 12 + 12
Seven needs four squares (4 + 1 + 1 + 1), eight needs only two (4 + 4), nine needs only one (itself) so these both work (4 + 4 + 0 & 9 + 0 + 0). JIMp talk·cont 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

## Limited protection

Given the constant stream of vandalism on this page by non-authenticated folks, perhaps limited protection should be turned on? Thoughts?--P Todd (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be something else but I'm sure it's a KIA advert, where there are loads of scientists looking at numbers "3" and "7" and they all start shouting "Seven!" so perhaps we can include that! CovBiggsy (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

## New Separate "7" page(s)

Considering how jumbled up the mess in this page is, most of this needs to have a separate page. I request creating a secondary disambiguation page and label that new page as 7 (plot device). That way, we can edit that new page for new instances in which '7' is used in and ease down on the repetition of "Oh LOOK! ANOTHER 7 instance! I'LL EDIT WIKIPEDIA!!!" on this one.

Areas that would be moved:

• Music
• Television
• Film
• Literature
• Video games
• Religion (or put this in a separate page altogether, like 7 (religion))

Thoughts? Totlmstr (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

## The Word?

What is the origin, is it the same as the German origin of Eleven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.101.34 (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

## Reciprocal

I'm fascinated by my recent discovery that ${\displaystyle 7^{-1}=7\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }(50)^{-n}}$, or the possibly more relevant ${\displaystyle 7^{-1}=7\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }(7^{2}+1)^{-n}}$. Could somebody more qualified than me to explain the maths integrate this gem, and an explanation as to why it is so, into the article. Kevin McE (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

${\displaystyle k\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }(k^{2}+1)^{-n}=k{\frac {\frac {1}{k^{2}+1}}{1-{\frac {1}{k^{2}+1}}}}=k{\frac {\frac {1}{k^{2}+1}}{\frac {k^{2}}{k^{2}+1}}}={\frac {k}{k^{2}}}=k^{-1}}$
Not particularly notable, I'm afraid. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
D'oh: maybe it was the ease of dividing by 50 that lead me into the beauty of it. Still a good trick to amuse more able pupils. The annoying thing is that I think I once knew that expansion, many moons ago. Thanks anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

## Seven Emperors of Rome?

I study classics and have never come across the term "seven Emperors of Rome" which is given in the classical antiquity section. The link leads to nowhere and the names cited as these seven emperors have no visible connection (I'm pretty sure Sallust wasn't even ever the name of an emperor). I think they meant the seven kings of Rome (who were missing, I added them) but not being sure I thought I would merely raise the point that perhaps this example should be removed rather than removing it myself. Howtheocritushadsung (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2011 (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!

• 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'
• In 52 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:05:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
• In 7 (number) on 2011-06-19 21:10:44, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2011 (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) 21:11, 19 June 2011 (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) 21:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

## Move discussion in progress

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)

## Favorite number is 7

I just read that a recent poll revealed that the world's "favorite number" is seven. Here is the article: [2]. Is this worth a mention in this article? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Should these be added into the article? The seven deadly sins? The seven sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"The line through the middle is useful to clearly differentiate the character from the number one, as these can appear similar when written in certain styles of handwriting"

I've never seen handwriting in which a 7 looked anything like a 1. I thought the horizontal line was to distinguish 7 from 2. On lined paper, the base of the 2 can blend in with the bottom line, meaning that 2 and 7 appear very similar if the 7 doesn't have that extra stroke. Is it just me? --87.224.68.42 (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I've often seen seven confused with one, and I would have thought that the curve of a two would be sufficient to distinguish it from the straight seven, even if the lower horizontal is obscured by the printed line. Dbfirs 20:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

## seven triangle and seven circles

Where should I put the following example i feel it's too long and contain to many numbers?

199.7.157.105 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

${\displaystyle 0.98+0.1^{2}+0.1^{2}=1\arccos 0.98+\arccos 0.1+\arccos 0.1=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.92+0.2^{2}+0.2^{2}=1\arccos 0.92+\arccos 0.2+\arccos +0.2=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.82+0.3^{2}+0.3^{2}=1\arccos 0.82+\arccos 0.3+\arccos 0.3=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.68+0.4^{2}+0.4^{2}=1\arccos 0.68+\arccos 0.4+\arccos 0.4=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.5+0.5^{2}+0.5^{2}=1\arccos 0.5+\arccos 0.5+\arccos 0.5=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.28+0.6^{2}+0.6^{2}=1\arccos 0.72+\arccos 0.6+\arccos 0.6=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.02+0.7^{2}+0.7^{2}=1\arccos 0.02+\arccos 0.7+\arccos 0.7=180}$

sides of triangle= 5,5,1=11

                = 5,5,2=12
= 5,5,3=13
= 5,5.4=14
= 5,5,5=15
= 5,5,6=16
= 5,5,7=17

${\displaystyle 0.98+0.99+0.0^{2}=1.98---1.92/2=0.99}$
${\displaystyle 0.92+0.96+0.2^{2}=1.92---1.92/2=0.96}$
${\displaystyle 0.82+0.91+0.3^{2}=1.82---1.82/2=0.91}$
${\displaystyle 0.68+0.84+0.4^{2}=1.68----1.68/2=0.84}$
${\displaystyle 0.5+0.75+0.5^{2}=1.5----1.5/2=0.,75}$
${\displaystyle 0.28+0.6^{2}+0.6^{2}=1.28----1.28/2=0.64}$
${\displaystyle 0.02+0.51+0.7^{2}=1.02----1.02/2=0.51}$
${\displaystyle 98+99+100}$
${\displaystyle 92+96+100}$
${\displaystyle 82+91+100}$
${\displaystyle 68+84+100}$
${\displaystyle 50+75+100}$
${\displaystyle 28+64+100}$
${\displaystyle 2+51+100}$
${\displaystyle 2+6+10+14+18+22+26=98}$
${\displaystyle 2+8+18+32+50+72+98=280}$
${\displaystyle \arccos(0.92)+\arccos(0.2)+\arccos(0.2)=180}$
${\displaystyle \arccos(0.82)+\arccos(0.3)+\arccos(0.3)=}$

sides of triangle

${\displaystyle 5+5+1=11}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+2=12}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+3=13}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+4=14}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+5=15}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+6=16}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+7=17}$

The fourth number,a triangle that follows the next example:

${\displaystyle 0.68+0.4+0.4=1.48\arccos 0.68+\arccos 0.4+\arccos 0.4=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.68+0.16+0.16=1}$
${\displaystyle 1-0.68=0.32}$
${\displaystyle {\frac {0.32}{2}}=0.16,{\sqrt {0}}.16=0.4}$
${\displaystyle 0.68,0.68+0.16=0.84,0.84+16=1}$
${\displaystyle 0.68\times 100=68,0.84\times 100=84,1\times 100=100}$
${\displaystyle {\frac {68}{4}}=17{\frac {84}{4}}=21{\frac {100}{4}}=25}$

199.7.157.105 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it should go anywhere, not even in the Triangle article. Is it original research? Dbfirs 20:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

for a circle the sum off the three angles is 9.8 and if I take arccos of all three numbers it gives me 180

${\displaystyle 0.98+0.1+0.1=1.18}$
${\displaystyle 0.92+0.2+0.2=1.32}$
${\displaystyle 0.82+0.3+0.3=1.42}$
${\displaystyle 0.68+0.4+0.4=1.48}$
${\displaystyle 0.5+0.5+0.5=1.5}$
${\displaystyle 0.28+0.6+0.6=1.48}$
${\displaystyle 0.02+0.7+0.7=142}$
${\displaystyle 1.18+1.32+1.42+1.48+1.5+1.48+1.42=9.8}$

for 7 triangle the sum is 98 and 98 divided by 7 equals 14

${\displaystyle 5+5+1=11}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+2=12}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+3=13}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+4=14}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+5=15}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+6=16}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+7=17}$
${\displaystyle 11+12+13+14+15+16+17=98}$

4.2+2.8+2.8=9.8 divided by 7 equals 0.6+0.4+0.4=1.4

the sequence of seven numbers 2+6+10+14+18+22+26 divided by 7 equal 14.

So it is true for all element,the circle and the triangle, 7 is mentioned numerous time. And 98 divided by 7=14 and 14 is on the fourth place. 199.119.233.203 (talk) 13:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm unclear about how this is relevant to the number seven article, or to either of the shapes. Where did you find this analysis? Is it original research? Dbfirs 15:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

## there are 7 trianlge in which the perimeter are:

${\displaystyle 5+5+1=11}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+2=12}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+3=13}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+4=14}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+5=15}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+6=16}$
${\displaystyle 5+5+7=17}$

${\displaystyle 1-0.98=0.02}$
${\displaystyle 1-0.92=0.8}$
${\displaystyle 1-0.82=0.18}$
${\displaystyle 1-0.68=0.32}$
${\displaystyle 1-0.5=0.50}$
${\displaystyle 1-0.28=0.72}$
${\displaystyle 1-0.02=0.98}$

so:${\displaystyle 11+12+13+14+15+16+17=98and98/7=14}$ 199.119.233.203 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

## there are 7 circles in which their angles equals 98

${\displaystyle \arccos 0.98+\arccos 0.1+\arccos 0.1=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.98+0.1+0.1=1.18}$
${\displaystyle \arccos 0.92+\arccos 0.2+\arccos 0.2=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.92+0.2+0.2=1.32}$
${\displaystyle \arccos 0.82+\arccos 0.3+\arccos 0.3=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.82+0.3+0.3=1.42}$
${\displaystyle \arccos 0.68+\arccos 0.4+\arccos 0.4=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.68+0.4+0.4=1.48}$
${\displaystyle \arccos 0.5+\arccos 0.5+\arccos 0.5=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.5+0.5+0.5=1.5}$
${\displaystyle \arccos 0.28+\arccos 0.6+\arccos 0.6=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.28+0.6+0.6=1.48}$
${\displaystyle \arccos 0.02+\arccos 0.7+\arccos 0.7=180}$
${\displaystyle 0.02+0.7+0.7=1.42}$
${\displaystyle 1.18+1.32+1.42+1.48+1.5+1.48+1.42=9.8}$

199.119.233.203 (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)