Talk:4

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 4 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Numbers High‑importance

	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.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Judeo-Christian symbolism

The article currently has a section titled "Judeo-Christian symbolism". This is a problem because they are separate religions, and even where they share scripture they interpret it differently. (Additionally, they are not the only religions to treat the Hebrew bible as a part of the scripture.) Looking at the entries in this, it looks as though it could be sensibly divided into two separate sections: "Bible" and "Judaism". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the index in a sequence be considered a mathematical object worthy of including in number articles?

Esp. in guidance of nice/core/etc. properties in OEIS. Radlrb (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certes, you mentioned "No. Consensus at Talk:2 is that such facts are about pi, not the integer." as your reasoning in your recent revision that undid my edit, where I noted "The unit (1) is the fourth distinct entry in the continued fraction for pi π ), by order of appearances of entries." This is about 1 as an integer within a sequence descriptive of pi (unrelated to a base-specific property) in a continued fraction *where 4 is its index in the sequence (also an integer; generally in sequences, indexes usually will carry integer values, outside of functions with varying ranges and domains, and the like) Radlrb (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)*. Check for something that makes sense, somewhat, in that sequence after a quick look? The product of the first two distinct entries in [the] continued fraction for pi is 21, where the 42nd (42 = 21 x 2) indexed member is quite special in this sequence: 20776, a value that is not superseded until the 350th indexed new entry (sequence A154883 in the OEIS) (specifically 78629, where 350 is near-triangular, as the sum of the digits [2, 26])), which does not appear for quite some time (comparatively, not in several powers of 10 terms in the continued fraction for pi (sequence A001203 in the OEIS)). There are other things: 14 (7 x 2) is the seventh new entry, and 42 (14 x 3) is the 23rd, where 20776 is the 431st term in the continued fraction, with 431 the 83rd prime number and 23rd super-prime (also, 20776 has twenty-four (12 x 2) divisors, and the sum of its prime factors is 73, the 21st prime number). Radlrb (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer to your question in the thread topic is "Obviously not." - at least if I understand it correctly. I cannot make any useful sense out of the rest of what you have written, but I hope others will give their opinions too. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, at least explain then, why you think not. Radlrb (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC) And maybe also how you are interpreting the question, and so forth. Radlrb (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter, or 21, or something

I removed:

This is the ancient sign for Jupiter, and to me it looks a bit like 21; somehow this does not seem to belong. I think it could be added as a snippet to the description of the glyph, pointing out that it comes from 'z' rather than '4'. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second this, if somebody knows how to type this glyph they know what it is. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clearer version of the glyph for Jupiter

. It does look like the open 4, so someone looking for the meaning of that symbol could potentially be looking for it by typing "4". But there are no significant incoming views from 4, indicating it's not useful. Polyamorph (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]