Talk:Numerology/Archive 2

"Readily Verifiable"

The beginning of the dispute of the previous section is located in the history from yesterday under a tag-line involving the number 365.25.Julzes (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This post is the promised "further clarification" to the new material formerly at the end of the History section, and a partial continuation of the preceding dispute. First, I will remark that my handling of this original material is founded on the argument that I am providing something akin to an arithmetical snapshot of the planet we live on, and I regard these results as pure data--simple equations with esthetic features that should be interpreted as a matter of design (of some origin and intent) rather than mere coincidence--and not quite as research. The distinction is a little fine, but if one sees something interesting by chance and takes a real photograph, then that is not research in the same way that hearing about something interesting, seeking it out, and then photographing it is. As you will find in the history of failed related postings, the two related arithmetical oddities that I found cannot, I say, be claimed as having come to me through the motivation and effort of research. Though this could be disputed to some degree if one knew exactly what was going through my mind, I am satisfied with this fine distinction. The more complicated identity involving the fourth power of our simple approximation to the number of days in a year was essentially found through stumbling on the date of the Trinity Site nuclear test while reading at the rather late age of 41--this fact leading to a natural inquiry of a personal nature and the result. The second simpler identity involving the square did appear to stem from a curiosity as to how the fourth power may have been primordially obtained in a natural manner and from the fact that the square would use the first six of our digits exactly once, but I will cite the date of its finding (03/06/09, as we write this March 6th in the USA) as a claimed evidentiary datum of the pre-destination of my discovery, and leave it at that.

Now, the two identities do satisfy what I would insist from the perspective of desiring to increase mathematical literacy--numeracy--a readily verifiable nature. All one really needs is a calculator with at least 16- or 17-digit output, and it is now common for calculators to go well beyond that, at least those that are part of a computer's office software (I haven't taken a look at the stand-alone options). Alternatively--if one is arithmetically inclined--they may be checked by hand, though it would be extraordinarily tedious for most people. The way one would use a calculator--in the event one needs this tutorial--to verify the lengthier calculation is to 1) key in 365.25 (the decimal part is the recognizable substitute for 1/4), 2a) press the x-to-the-y button followed by 4 or 2b) press the x-squared button twice, 3) write down or memorize the decimal part, 4) key that in by itself, 5) multiply by 2-to-the-eighth or 4-to-the-fourth or 256 (as you wish), and 6) identify by sight the number 49 as 7-squared. The simpler calculation is, well, simpler, and I will leave that to the reader. As far as significance of these two new results, you can get a first glimpse of just my opinion in the history of the item (same day Eastern US and recognizable by description) and the above here. Any apology I may owe as a new wikipedia user should be considered fully rendered; and as for leaving more questions than answers, oh, well, join my club (as is said)!Julzes (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI...Numerology....Science....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=numerology+science&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+numerology+scientific&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.64.208.16 (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, pH 7 is a good number though... ~___^--222.64.208.16 (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

pH 1 and further, pH 14 and further are all too corrosive....lah...--222.64.208.16 (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Pythagorean numerology should be in a separate topic....

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=10&q=Pythagorean+numerology&hl=en&as_sdt=2000

--222.64.208.16 (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not helpful. If it should be a separate topic, write the article first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whats happend?

Last time I read this article there was a lot more information, There was stuff on numerology of names, and the different methods... Where has it all gone, and why? 210.185.9.163 (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why the deletion of sourced, valuable external links (many standing for years) all of a sudden?

18:25, 8 December 2009 DavidWBrooks (talk | contribs) (15,302 bytes) (remove most external links - the Web is full of "analyses" of various types of numerology, if we link to some it's obvious the list will grow endlessly)

I've been following this article for a while and that hasn't happened. I've restored *Comparative Numerology: Fundamental Powers: The Numbers One to Ten which is a sourced meta-analysis of your "analyses." There are other valuable links in the History. You do realize that, for instance "Iamblichus" is not even mentioned in the main article (and not even in the remaining Brittanica link which is devoted to Pythagorean thought) which seems a sad shadow of an article designed to keep popular numerology out (rather than useful content in). I think WP has a hard time with fringe subjects. --Aleph1 (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed ten links back on Dec. 8 - ten different, often contradictory, links to lists of what numbers "mean," few with any information indicating where the information came from; it was a largely unsourced grabbag. By contrast, the link that you restored does, as you note, have references within it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. However, one person's grabbag is another's goldmine. Here are two more from your deleted grabbag that seem quite useful (from a numerological perspective, of course): *The Theology of Arithmetic and Eschatological symbolism in Judaism and early Christianity. Both are representative of scholarly material. The first includes a dissertation abstract, "Formation of the Early Christian Theology of Arithmetic: Number Symbolism in the Late Second and Early Third Century." And these are just the first two (out of eight or so) deleted links I looked at. If someone is trying to do research on the subject, these are far more useful than the poor excuse of a main article (which is really a contentless link-farm to other subjects). As the first link I quoted demonstrates, this is actually a valid field of inquiry. --Aleph1 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - and you are correct that this article has gotten little serious attention over the years, being limited mostly to New Age hoohah. If my (admittedly heavy-handed and superficial) link removal can help change that, then it won't be without some benefit. Although I hope you don't restore the link that described itself as "The meaning numbers 0 to 39 (very detailed informations)" - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the two mentioned above and left out the grabbaggy and borderline links. Thanks for the cleanup. --Aleph1 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake dates

I've received an email on the internet that illustrates how people play with numbers to make interesting predictions. The numbers are formed by the date of the recent major earthquakes.

5/12 Sichuan/China
1/12 Haiti 
2/27 Chili

If you read the digits horizonally, you get 512, 112, 227. And read the digits vertically, you get the same sequence of numbers. Some believe this pattern of numbers shows a sign. If you take the last column, 12/12/27 that is the predicted date of the end of the world December 27, 2012. If you join the epicenters of the 3 earthquakes on a globe, all three lie on the same plane that split the Earth into half. Some predict that's how the world will end.  :-) It is amazing how people can form patterns out of random numbers and events. Kowloonese (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What Pythagoras Knew?

The sections on what Pythagoras knew and did not know should really be listed as opinion, not fact. Pythagoras never left anything in writing, and someone today can hardly say what Pythagoras knew. Yet statements like:

"...although Pythagoras himself had nothing to do with the system known as numerology." "Since Pythagoras had never coined the calculations and had never worked with the Hebrew alphabet, there could actually not possibly be any so-called "Pythagorean" numerology." "Pythagoras was never involved in the numerology systems known nowadays."

Come off as rather presumptuous. Very little is known about what Pythagoras actually knew. There is some scraps of information from early followers, but that is about it. Certainly nothing that leads to statements like the above, which state as fact what he knew, did not know, and was never involved with. No doubt whatever he was involved with was different from what is happening today in many respects, but we don't really know. In addition, the language is a little bit strange ("had never coined the calculations"). Some sections read like someone who is not that familiar with English.

Its the same old mistake made over and over again, if modern humans have not found it, then it must not exist.

--Mbase1235 (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Gaming advertisements?

The entire section Numerology#Numerology in gaming seems fundamentally flawed. It claims that "numerology is sometimes referred to as the only effective method" for a number of pure games of hazard. It neither offers any sources for this (apart from the only reference for the whole section, leading to advertisements for roulette), nor contributes any criticism or contrary opinions.

Let me just note as a mathematician, that there is just one known way to be a long run winner in a game like roulette: Open a casino! There are surely methods to be a net winner in games that involve both chance and skill, like poker; but in roulette, at every single instance the mathematically most sound tactic is: "Don't put a bet this time!" (provided you want to maximise your expected net result, in the short or the long run). I do not think you could find mathematicians or probabilists who would gainsay me - essentially. (E.g., Darrel Huff did make an exception for situations where you have good reason to believe either that the wheel is defect, or that the casino owners are cheating; but I do not think it appropriate to define such flawed situations as instances of "roulette".)

The section was created here, some 20 months ago, and has hardly changed since then.

I do think that numerology in gaming is interesting enough to be mentioned; but we should not describe it as an efficient method. Thus, I think that the entire section might be rewritten e.g. as follows:

Numerology in gaming

Some players apply methods, that are sometimes are called numerological, in games such as bingo, roulette, keno, lotteries, and other games involving numbers, but no skill. Due to the fact that no strategy can be applied to increase player odds in such games, some players may turn to employing "lucky numbers" in order to find what they think will help them.

There is no evidence that any such "numerological strategy" should yield a better outcome than pure chance, but they are sometimes encouraged e.g. by casino owners.

The reference is the same as the original one, but IMHO employed in a more adequate context:

Since these suggested changes will give another overall impression from the section, I prefer to test it out here on the talk page, instead of boldly implementing directly. JoergenB (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed this comment when I made my speedy deletion of the section. I didn't mean to roar past you!

I think what you've written is excellent. (I was thinking of wikilinking "lucky number", but that goes only to a specific concept in number theory, which isn't at all what we want!) I would suggest a couple of very small edits, mostly tightening (e.g., I think it can be one paragraph), like this:

Numerology in gaming

Some players apply methods that are sometimes are called numerological in games which involve numbers but no skill, such as bingo, roulette, keno, or lotteries. Although no strategy can be applied to increase odds in such games, players may employ "lucky numbers" to find what they think will help them. There is no evidence that any such "numerological strategies" yields a better outcome than pure chance, but they are sometimes encouraged, e.g. by casino owners.

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OK; I inserted your suggestion (with a clarifying replacement of they with the methods).

Just one question about grammar: Not being a native English-speaker, I sometimes have some troubles with the finer points of the usage of singular or plural forms of verbs. I would have written either "any such strategy yields" or "any such strategies yield" rather than "any such strategies yields". Was this a misprint, or my misunderstanding? JoergenB (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Misprint - you are correct. I changed strategy from singular to plural without tweaking the verb - but reading it again, I think singular was better. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

how we can say the charecter or future of a person by applying numerology to name

can u please say the method and princples of numerology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.148.137 (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this a serious question or are you asking for sources on how some people may think this is important? Usually they are trying to make someone's name add up to 666 from what I've seen. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 16:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Arithmancy seems to cover the idea. Personally I was looking for information on the use of numerical patterns for strategic planning or communication when I came to this article but I haven't spotted anything on that topic. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Chaldean

I hereby create discussion, in proposition that some Consideration for the "nineless" Numerology of the Chaldean tribes be open. This is one of the more ancient formats. I propose that in lieu of its seniority, Section 2.4 be alotted. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Article picture?

What is the purpose of the first article picture? It makes no sense and doesn't have any sort of explanation. 68.97.241.128 (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

It appears to be vandalism. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Triads In The Periodic Table

While triads were originally based upon atomic weights and were approximate only, those based on atomic NUMBER and are associated with elements in the same column are actually exact.

But this ultimately depends on what version of the periodic table one uses as well. The Janet Left-Step Table has all new orbital types, based on quantum number l, to the left of previous ones so f,d,p,s for l=3,2,1,0 respectively.

And not all Janet periods (which all end in s2 electronic configuration) give the same type of triadic relation.

If one starts at placeholder element 0, then the arithmetic mean for 0,4 is 2, which is correct. For 4,20 we get 12, correct. 20,56 gives 38, correct, and 56,120 gives 88, correct. This shows that every other Janet period starting for real elements for the second period gives arithmetic means that are the known atomic numbers of the s2 intermediate elements.

But if we start with 0,2,12,38,88,170... to create a new set of arithmetic means, the results are 1,7,25,63,129, which are in fact elements with half-filled largest available orbitals, 1 for 1s, 7 for 2p, 25 for 3d, 63 for 4f, 129 for hypothetical 5g (this is for placement in the periodic pattern, even if the electronic configuration may differ due to other factors).

Interestingly, the set of 1,7,25,63,129 in the electronic system, when doubled, yield every-other spin-orbit nuclear magic number 2,14,50,126,258, while the s2 numbers 4,20,56,120... when doubled give every other harmonic oscillator nuclear magic number 8,40,112,240... (and are also doubled tetrahedral numbers from the Pascal Triangle). 69.121.117.192 (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

For certain definitions of "interestingly". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Incessant removal of external links

Recent removal of the following external links was insistent. I restored them:

1. The Theology of Arithmetic
2. Comparative Numerology: The Numbers One to Ten: Fundamental Powers psyche.com
3. The Resurrection Numbers: Eschatological symbolism in Judaism and early Christianity
4. alphanumeric analysis of the structure of every verse of the Holy Bible

Of yet I need form no opinion and no defense for their presence or their style. I only disagree with the edit summary reason "they don't provide more value than a google search would". It is enough for me to point out that the removed ELs 1-3 were previously discussed, successfully defended, and finally accepted (during the previous and similar incident) at What happened?

Ironically, an untouched EL that remained is what I reason fails the "tasteful" test at EL#What_to_link. I deleted it:

• 2006 article about juror being removed from trial after using numerology

I read it. Among the not-tasteful relative to numerology and to common taste, I had to find:

• "numerology is nowhere in the jury instructions"
• "frustrated fellow jurors"
• The visage of
  • "killing 14-year-old Jahkema 'Princess' Hansen... [who] died in harrowing fashion [because she was] "shot Hansen in the back of head... [because] she was a witness to [another] killing"
  • "Hansen was killed after seeing Ward kill a drug dealer"
• that the "kicked-off" numerologist
  • was "there to force a mistrial"
  • "could not say anything because of 'the judge's order'"
  • was "One of the jurors... insulting and argumentative [and with] hidden agenda"
  • was "always straying"
  • associates "horoscopes" with numerology
• that numerology is "unexpected"

I do not condone numerology in our courts, but I think I defend policy. There is no cabal. — CpiralCpiral 07:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you think something is distasteful is irrelevant to its relevance to the article. That article is one of the few times that numerology has appeared in standard news coverage, as something other than people peddling their pet ideas. I have returned it - as the only (IMHO) external link of any extra value to the reader. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blowing Princess Jahkema's head off from the back for witnessing a drug dealer get murdered is not distasteful? The depiction of a numerologist as foolish, criminal, and rejected by sound judgement, is not distasteful in an encyclopedia article on numerology?
• If the subject of numerology on WP needed the title, because, as you say, it was in a notable newspaper, then the article would seem to benefit from the added notability factor. I don't think numerology suffers from a question of notability.
• Even if there was no policy against distasteful links, because you are a newspaper man who finds the newspaper event noteworthy, would this bias you to argue the taste factor at WP:EL? What about WP:COI? I'd like other opinions, thank you.
• Let's consider that the content of the external link adds "value to the reader". What is the educational value towards an understanding of numerology while slogging through that tabloid newspaper article about the death of princesses and disgracefulness of numerologists? Why else read an encyclopedia about numerology except to avoid such material about numerology? If I want to read "testifying while high on marijuana to a juror finding herself followed home by a key figure in the case" I'll read the tabloids, no thank you.
• You worry about "people peddling their pet ideas", and you claim it is a reason to keep the external link in question. As far as I can tell, having only found evidence to the contrary in past discussions, and you having provided no evidence, you may be operating on a false premises.

For other articles on WP, the taste factor of "death" may be appropriate. I'm sorry, but not here. Personally I think this external link is very likely to disgust its target audience, and esp. a numerologist. --CPiral 174.31.172.230 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what wikipedia is about - it's to provide information, not to make people feel good. The article is extremely informative, showing the use of numerology in a real-world setting (for better or for worse). I'm sorry that you find it distasteful, but as I said, the personal feelings of you or me, or other individual editors, isn't what wikipedia's all about. There are lots of numerology websites where it would not be useful or appropriate - but wikipedia isn't one of them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the links and internal references. As you say, this was discussed five years ago. I was about to give up. Note that Iamblichus is still not mentioned in the article. --Aleph1 (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other links, but the "alphanumeric analysis" link isn't what it says or relevant to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Number definitions section was deleted recently for some reason -- 22:21, 15 January 2015‎ Complainer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,195 bytes) (-1,862)‎ . . (→‎Number definitions: some great sources there, too...) -- removing the last vestige (since the external links were purged) of any (Western) attribution of meaning to numbers. Iamblichus [[1]] is sad. "The whole of Iamblichus's complex theory is ruled by a mathematical formalism of triad, hebdomad, etc., while the first principle is identified with the monad, dyad and triad; symbolic meanings being also assigned to the other numbers." This is just one example of the rich tradition now ignored in this article. --Aleph1 (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Dudley and numerology

I have removed this addition from the introduction because I think it's confusing and unnecessary:

however, Dudley also distinguishes between "number mystics" and "numerologists," writing that "There is nothing wrong with mysticism. On the other hand, everything is wrong with numerology." (page 2)

It was added at the end of an example from Underwood Dudley that is given to show that the word "numerology" is sometimes applied to practices in areas other than the usual applications (in this case, stock-market analysis). It is not designed to discuss Dudley's attitudes toward numerology, so there's no need to start going into details about that attitude.

What Dudley calls mysticism is not numerology, as he makes clear continuing with that quote: "Numerologists purport to apply mysticism. ... They take the mystical properties of numbers and attach them to things and people. ... This is standing mysticism on its head." In other words, numbers mysticism and numerology are two different things in his point of view.

That's why the addition just confuses things, since it's not clear what he means by mysticism vs. numerology. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

David, thanks for the discussion. In my experience, skeptics on Wikipedia tend to misrepresent the views of the sources they cite. Citing Dudley as critical of numerology suggests that he is critical of a mystical interpretation of numbers in general, and this is a misrepresentation. Part of the purpose of the article is to define what numerology is and is not. In Dudley's view, numerology is not number mysticism. Yet, the article defines numerology as any purported mystical interpretation of numbers.

Perhaps the quote belongs elsewhere in the article, but it does belong in the article if the article is going to cite Dudley. If we're going to say what Dudley includes in his use of the term "numerology," we should also say what he excludes. You can't just pick the parts of Dudley's book that support the skeptical view and ignore the parts that don't. The article needs to be fair, and it isn't. It has a skeptical bias. — Fred Chapman fwchapman (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the sentence; it doesn't cite Dudley as being critical of numerology and it doesn't support the skeptic view - in fact, it doesn't support anybody's view. Somebody who had never read Dudley's book would have no idea of his ideas on numerology from the sentence. The sentence is included merely to show that the word "numerology" is sometimes applied to fields (like stock analysis) different than the New Age-y areas where it is usually encountered, and uses Dudley as an example. Because you know Dudley's opinion you read it as being critical, but it's not. It's merely reflective. Your extra quotes and analysis might belong in Dudley's own article, but not here. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, you're right about the skeptics dictionary. I have given a different citation for the "regarded as pseudoscience" sentence - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

David, that's a fair point about Dudley's application of "numerology" outside of metaphysics. Nevertheless, I have a problem with the way this article defines numerology. I believe Dudley's distinction between "numerology" and "number mysticism" is relevant and should be included. Stating what numerology is not, in the considered opinion of a mathematics professor who wrote an entire book on the subject, is just the kind of content the article needs if it is to be accurate and balanced. Right now, it is neither.

Why don't we move my proposed quote near the beginning of the article, where numerology is defined? Articulating what numerology isn't helps clarify what it is. If the article can say "numerology" shouldn't be confused with "number theory," it can certainly say that one expert (already cited elsewhere in the article) states that "numerology" is not the same thing as "number mysticism."

In general, I want to see Wikipedia shed its systemic bias that all scientists are antagonistic to metaphysics. Dudley isn't, and neither am I. (My PhD is in math.) Skeptics don't own Wikipedia and have no right to mold it in their own image, yet they keep trying. That needs to stop. Let's take this opportunity to create a more balanced treatment of a metaphysical topic, okay? fwchapman (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You have a point: The "not to be confused with number theory" hatnote is an unnecessary intro, isn't it? I think it can be removed ... in fact, I will remove it.

Differentiating numerology, the practice, from number mysticism, the belief system, would be a valuable addition to the introduction. I'm not capable of doing doing that; could you? (As a side note, my BS is in math - not quite Ph.D., alas.)

As far as the skeptic/science disagreement, saying that it is regarded as pseudoscience by skeptics seems a pointless tautology ("the claims are regarded with skepticism by skeptics"). The sentence is trying to reflect the understanding in modern science that the practice of numerology - alphabetic systems, etc. - is not valid. If the introduction does a better job of differentiating numerology from number mysticism, then that might be more acceptable. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Pascal Triangle Motivation for the Periodic System

The spherical nuclear magic numbers under the simpler harmonic oscillator model are exactly doubled tetrahedral numbers, right out of the Pascal Triangle, but with all terms doubled. According to one mathematical physicist, this is due to the way the quantum harmonic oscillator works in different dimensions. The numbers of states generated at each level are 1 for 1D (the outer sides of the Triangle), Natural numbers for 2D (the first diagonal), Triangular numbers for 3D (the second diagonal), Tetrahedral numbers for 4D (the third diagonal) and so on. Doubling accounts for pairs of particles with opposing spins.

When the spin-orbit coupling effect is added as a correction term in the nuclear Hamiltonian orbitals become split in two parts, larger and smaller by one spin unit. Sizes of such partial orbitals are: s=2,0, p=4,2, d=6,4, f=8,6, g=10,8, h=12,10, i=14,12, j=16,14.... The larger partial orbital aligns its spin with the orbit and drops in energy, eventually enough so that it becomes, energetically, part of the previous shell.

Sizes of period analogues, in the harmonic oscillator model, are all exactly doubled triangular numbers in length: s=2, p=6, ds=12, fp=20, gds=30, hfp=42, igds=56, jhfp=72....

When the high-spin orbital partials are added the size of the period analogue, from the harmonic oscillator default, increase exactly to the very next doubled triangular number: s+p=6, p+d=12, ds+f=20, fp+g=30, gds+h=42, hfp+i=56, jhfp+j=72...

And when the high-spin partial orbital is lost from its harmonic oscillator default period analogue, the remaining part is reduced in size to the next lower doubled triangular number.

After a certain point in the shell-filling system the high-spin partials, called intruder levels, drop down sufficiently to become ordered before the terminal nucleons of the default harmonic oscillator period analogue. Because of the way the period analogues are constructed the intruder 'depths' are, for neutrons, always themselves doubled triangular numbers: the first g partial drops positionally down 2, the first h partial 6, the first i 12, and the first j 20. Protons have the same depth ordering, but there are hints of variant orders available, still double triangular. The depths of nucleon intrusion appear in the main to occur precisely after the third orbital partial of the default harmonic oscillator period analogue they end up becoming a part of. 108.35.168.107 (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

History section

Clarifications needed in History section. Regarding this phrase:

around the turn of the century (from 1800 to 1900 A.D.)

That wasn't a "turn" of a century, that was a whole century. And during or bordering on that period, there were two turns (the 1800-1801 turn, and the 1900-1901 turn) and three different named centuries (1800 was in the 18th century, 1900 was in the 19th century, and 1901 was in the 20th century). Which turn are we talking about?

the meaning of the 9 digits remains the same

Which "9 digits"? Some systems deal with digits 1 thru 9 (examples given later in the article), but nothing up to this point in the article establishes which digits are being implied in this paragraph and section. So saying "the 9 digits" here is a non-sequitur. Also, what "meaning"? Perhaps it should read "respective meanings"? I might assume so, but nothing in the article establishes that the specific schools of numerology referenced in that sentence assign individual meanings to digits. So the reader is left to assume. -- HLachman (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Both are excellent points. I have made some edits and (mostly) cuts in response to your queries; what do you think? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

On the first point, I think the edit is fine as long as the new text is what was meant (I'm guessing it is, but I didn't check the refs). On the second point, the edit eliminates the issue, but the resulting sentence no longer adds much information (as it's almost a given that different authors have different things to say). What might be more informative is to change the original text to "while assigning the same meanings to the nine digits, 1 through 9 (see Western numerology, below)", and then add a section "Western numerology" showing the assigned meanings. If the various schools have these meanings in common, what better place than this article to list them? Well, that would be my wish list (and I don't know enough about it to elaborate). In any case, thanks for your attention to these issues. -- HLachman (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Delineating the scads of vague, contradictory and shifting "definitions" of numbers given by all the self-appointed numerology experts would be a task to try the patience of a saint. It's not like there are any standards or data to establish them - it's whatever the writer of the particular book dreams up. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

St. Augustine quote

I believe that the St. Augustine quote is probably dubious. I see that quote all over the Internet, but never with reference to its source. I am aware that St. Augustine did say many things concerning numbers, but that particular quote doesn't sound like something he would have said. Sounds more like a New Age-inspired paraphrase. Unless somebody is able to trace the quote back to one of his writings, it ought to be removed. 173.49.57.233 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting - you're right that it doesn't show up in the standard list of St. Augustine quotes, and you can easily find people asking "where is this quote from?" without getting a good answer. So you're probably correct that it's bogus, and definitely correct that it should be removed if we don't get a good source soon. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Numbers and their corresponding planets.

WP:NOTAFORUM

According to Numerology, everything is designated with a number in this World. These numbers are very influential in one's life. Each letter of our name is associated with a number having some specific meaning, so do the Planets have. Every Planet is given a number in numerology, let's take a look to it. 1 = Sun. 2 = Moon. 3 = Jupiter. 4 = Uranus. 5 = Mercury. 6 = Venus. 7 = Neptune. 8 = Saturn. 9 = Mars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.233.50 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC) October 3 1993 Bear334 (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Pythagoras was Greek

WP:NOTAFORUM

It's rather odd that no-one seems to notice the elephant in the room (or point out) that Pythagoras did not speak English and it is therefore logical to deduce that his system of numerology used the Greek language and alphabet. How any system, be it Pythagorean, Chaldean or whatever is supposed to work across all languages seems illogical as values must change - rendering such a system questionable if not of dubious merit. And what happens when you Anglicise Greek names? (or for that matter, any language) Does the vibration magically change and where is the consistency? Which raises another question - how do we know that the calendar we use has all the numbers in the correct place? Surely it is arbitrary, since nobody has been able to prove scientifically that any calendar is numerologically exact. One more thing... it irks me how arts like astrology and numerology are pejoratively labelled as "pseudoscience" when most practitioners make no claim that what they practice is a "science". These arts are at best crafts, not science at all. Science is limited to phenomena and therefore fails to account for noumenal i.e. metaphysical spirituality. Pseudoscience is a misnomer, surely! 49.185.1.82 (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC) Another argument against the Pythogorean system is that the Ancient Greeks did not use Arabic numerals! However as to your comment that science deals with phenomena, whereas numerology does not: surely it does. Surely the process of numerology aims to come up with some sort of prediction - "you will have good health" or "you will have many children" or whatever. These are phenomena, and can be checked. Similarly "there will be an eclipse tomorrow" relates to a phenomenon that can be checked. The difference is that when the numerological predictions are checked, they don't work. That's why they are psuedoscience, not science. Baska436 (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Well no, Baska436, Roman numerals and Arabic numerals have the same values so it makes no difference whatsoever. And your claim "Surely the process of numerology aims to come up with some sort of prediction" is utter conjecture on your part and rather presumptuous. Stop being such a **(?)** and stick to facts. I am not arguing for the validity or otherwise of numerology, astrology, etcetera - on the contrary! Perhaps you do not understand what pseudoscience is other than using it as a slur word. A cheese sandwich isn't pseudoscience because it doesn't use (a) the scientific method, (b) scientific terminology or (c) claim to be a science. The same applies to numerology, astrology, etcetera. It is rare to find a numerologist or astrologer who claims to be scientific, and I hold that THAT is an essential prerequisite for using the derogatory term pseudoscience in reference to them. And no, predictions regarding phenomena such as you will have three children, each 17 months apart, are never made by a reputable practitioner (but there are plenty of shonky charlatans who do!). Furthermore, a prediction of phenomena would go along the lines of gender, race, religion, height and weight, none of which a metaphysical craft practicioner would even dare to attempt, despite being held in contempt as charlatans. Yes, phenomena is used to obtain a reading such as date of birth, position of planets, etc but a proper reading is about CHARACTER and life DIRECTION , neither of which have a QUANTITATIVE value. See, what I am saying is that people use the term pseudoscience incorrectly, as in the cheese sandwich example. Again, I am not arguing for their validity, I'm saying that these things are not scientific, don't claim to be science, and it is therefore wrong to always call them pseudoscience because they're not. They are abstract, like any craft such as art or music, and unless you are going to call art or music pseudosciences because they don't use the scientific method or can be defined or proven in any way, it is the wrong use of terminology. No doubt you will fail to see the logic in any of this and continue to pig-headedly hang shit on them because of your bias and prejudice against metaphysical crafts. On the other hand, are gambling tips pseudoscience? I say they are because they make claims that they can predict outcomes. Numerology and astrology do not necessarily do this — but if they do, then yes, it is fair to use the slur word pseudoscience in those instances. May I repeat that I seriously doubt that any calendar or alphanumerical system can or more importantly should be used to describe a person's destiny. THAT would certainly qualify as pseudoscience but that isn't always how these crafts are used. Ningnongtwit (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC) Using that logic Baska436, psychology is also a pseudoscience because it too cannot be used to predict behaviour with 100% accuracy. Perhaps you missed the point - that like psychology, the metaphysical arts aren't pseudoscience when used as character analysis. They're crafts. But yes, as soon as anyone makes claims of being able to predict events/behaviour, whether they be a psychologist, astrologer or numerologist, they are stepping into the realm of pseudoscience. Human behaviour is always unpredictable when there is the element of spontaneity. Back to the elephant in the room, Pythagoras did not speak English or use the English alphabet. How is this ridiculous system supposed to work in Chinese for instance ha ha ha Ningnongtwit (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC) the name used is ALWAY the one given to you at BIRTH. The current ARABIC NUMBER SYSTEM.....123456789 JayOneKahGritty (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

dubious-discuss tag in article

On March 7, 2018, 173.49.57.233 added a "dubious-discuss" tag to a quote in the article, but I see no discussion here. The quote tagged dubious is, "Numbers are the Universal language offered by the deity to humans as confirmation of the truth". Was the dubious tag for the quote itself being unsourced or was this an issue with the content of the quote? If it was for the missing source of the quote, it should be marked as needing a source, i.e., citation needed. If it was for the content of the quote and the quote is valid, the dubious tag should be removed and a citation should be provided. If it was for the content of the quote and the quote is invalid, the quote and dubious tag should both be removed.

the quote and the dubious tag should be removed. (202.88.237.193 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

the entire article needs to be written in a much more objective manner. Numerology is a debatable topic, so both sides of the argument needs to be presented in an unbiased manner (202.88.237.193 (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC))

No it does not. See WP:FRINGE, WP:CHARLATANS and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)