Talk:7

Add topic
Active discussions

Fixed shapeEdit

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?

Religion partEdit

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.

SequencesEdit

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

Why Has All The Different Fields That Include the #7 Been Deleted and the Article Locked?!Edit

MODERATORS: Why has all the different fields that include the #7 been deleted and the article LOCKED?! This article now contains nothing but its bare math. What's Wikipedia's agenda here?! The #7 in science is certainly NOT "symbolic". Why has 7 been singled out compared to other numbers?!

6 Contents 1 In mathematics 1.1 List of basic calculations 2 Greek and Latin word parts 2.1 Hexa 2.2 The prefix sex- 3 Evolution of the Arabic digit 4 In music 4.1 In artists 4.2 In instruments 4.3 In music theory 4.4 In works 5 In religion 6 In science 6.1 Astronomy 6.2 Biology 6.3 Chemistry 6.4 Medicine 6.5 Physics 7 In sports 8 In technology 9 In calendars 10 In the arts and entertainment 10.1 Games 10.2 Comics and cartoons 10.3 Literature 10.4 TV 10.5 Movies 10.6 Musicals 11 Anthropology 12 In other fields 13 See also 14 References 15 External links 2601:589:4801:5660:787B:C1D0:B0A2:49D5 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed mergerEdit

The entire body of content related to the number seven's cultural relevance was removed from this page on 3 January 2020, seemingly arbitrarily. Every other article on a number contains this information and these is no reason why it should be split out into a separate 'symbolism' page for the number 7 - as it stands, there is a major inconsistency in the format for pages with information about numbers for no apparent reason. It is clear that there was some heated debate about the contents, presumably due to the religious nature of much of the symbolism, but the page has since been partially protected, so such problems are now less likely to persist -- Iskandar_323 (talk) 7:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Weak oppose. The symbolism text differs quantitatively (but not qualitatively) from sections such as 6#In religion because it is similar in size to the remaining content and would dominate the article if merged. However, a combined article would not be excessively large. It's inconsistent but pragmatic, in the same way that we have "Transportation in Fooville" articles for large conurbations but not those which can be summarised briefly. Certes (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Certes I would counter by pointing you to 8#In religion, which if anything is even larger than the separated religious content body for 7, and there is still yet more material on other topics on 8. Aside from the inherent inconsistency of the current situation, it also creates the misleading impression that the religious connotations of the number seven are somehow more important or special than those of other numbers, which is arguably a form of bias. Iskandar_323 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. The symbolism article was created because there were frequent calls to delete all of the content from the page on the number 7. In fact, it happened once or twice, IIRC. If it were merged back in, much of it would be lost as a result of people trying to make the page more focused. Bmcollier (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bmcollier The page for 7 has been protected from guest users that are not autoconfirmed since problems last arose over the body of content, so the situation is slightly altered. In addition to the comments I've directed above to Certes, I would note that I've taken the time to massively reduce and rationalise the separated religious contents - it is now much more concise and clearly structured. Iskandar_323 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the improvements. Wherever it best fits, our coverage is now much improved, and far more coherent than similar sections in some other number articles. Certes (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Certes do you have objections still or is it okay to go ahead with the merger? Emschorsch (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
If you see a consensus for merger then I've no objections. I think it's a close call and won't object to either outcome. Certes (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support much of the content at the symbolism should naturally be at the number article. Coming new to this I found the two-article setup very odd. It should follow other examples like 12 (number). Onceinawhile (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Support. 7 is probably more widely known for its symbolism than other numbers, so it would probably be okay to merge into the main article or at least make a section with a link to the symbolism article. Moodgenerator (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Support Exactly! The symbolism content belongs in the main 7 article.Newystats (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Support There is no clear principle for what would belong in the symbolism article vs this article. For example, in the symbolism article there is included: "Other Concepts", Seven psychological types, Classical Antiquities (which includes days of the week). Both article 6 and 8 both have sections for religious references. The content can be easily sectioned and organized in a way that all of it remains easily accessible without duplicating content across related wikis. Seven is clearly an important number so it is strange for the main wikipedia entry for it to make little mention of that and have the majority of content placed elsewhere. Emschorsch (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"−7" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect −7. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 31#−7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
13:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022 (2)Edit

Idk8 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

in English 17 is also a date example lets go to the movies on month/17th/year . this is in the dictionary stephen

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. SpinningCeres 23:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The international naval flag-badge representing the 7.Edit

 
The international naval flag-badge representing the 7.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:8005:4292:684A:5B6F:D8CB:B98D (talk) 09:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

"Mersenne safe prime" listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mersenne safe prime and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Mersenne safe prime until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pavlov2 (talk) 13:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)