# Talk:Numerology

Any spiritual seekers want to debunk this? Numerology, Readings that will stun you with their Honesty Proxima Centauri 17:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

- Checked out the online reviews of this site; apparently it's fully automated and people are getting the
*exact*same reading that everyone else is. There's several people complaining about this from the first few results on google.--PitchBlackMind 17:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)~~I'm sure I can put up a couple references for it, but are Yahoo! Answers and complaintboard.com acceptable for that? I mean it is just random people commenting on it. If it's allowed I'll add them.~~I went ahead and added them. If those sites aren't kosher for references just go ahead and remove them, and I'll look for something else. --PitchBlackMind 19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"KEEP... HEARING THE FUCKING NUMBERS!!" - Mason, *Call of Duty: Black Ops*

## Not all numerology depends on base[edit]

Article says *It is apparent that the whole "theory" hinges on this relatively arbitrary choice of base, which probably stems from humans having five digits on each of two hands.*. Yet I can present a numerological approach which does not depend on number base at all. Rather than taking iterated digital roots of numbers, as traditional Western numerology is want to do, one takes the iterated sopfr (Sum of Prime Factors with repetition). If one was to construct a numerology on such a basis, it would be base-independent. Of course, now we have the problem, that rather than only ten or so ultimate numbers (iterated digital roots) requiring interpretation, one has all the primes to interpret; but I think, one can give an interpretation to the smaller primes, which are the most common iterated sopfr values, and then the larger primes one can interpret collectively. (((Zack Martin)))^{™} 11:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

## Year 0[edit]

There is no year 0 CE (as the linked common era page correctly points out). If the example really wants to talk about the nonexistant year 0, I don't understand it at all. 176.9.46.141 (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

## Western languages / Base 10 / Fingers[edit]

Western languages have a great tradition of a lot of different bases (such as 12 ("dozen", "en gros") or 8 (many romanic languages), and the base-10 system in fact came very late and was imported. That the base 10 comes form us having 10 fingers is not very well supported (possible, but not well supported) because most historic finger counting schemes do not, in fact, use base 10. 194.126.175.154 (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

- All I can find on the subject is that there's a significant confusion over the numerals and the words (e.g., "quatre-vingt" for "80" in French). The numeral representations are certainly all base-10, even if the wording changes. Though most numbers in language do seem to loop at 10, rather than at any other position. There's no solid refutation that base 10 is arbitrarily chosen for digit representation because of 10 fingers that I can find. It might be coincidence, but it seems widely held to be the case.
^{pathetic}12:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)- Thinking about imperial measurements. Ounces, pounds, stones etc and distance Inches, feet, yards. Not very base ten there.--Bob
^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."}12:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)- But that says nothing about how the numbers themselves are represented. Hindu-Arabic, Chinese and Roman numerals are all base-10. That someone decides to ignore this for unit measurements doesn't really mean anything apart from the fact that those unit measurements are based on obscure traditions of scale.
^{moral}12:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)- Sure, but the fact non-base-ten measuring systems exist sort of argues against the idea that ten will be used inevitably by humans. I'm not saying that the ten fingers idea is wrong - it's just a counter-example which occurred to me.--Bob
^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."}12:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)- It seems the indigenous Yuki of northern California counted spaces between their fingers, hence in octal. Shepherds in various districts of Britain have used a vigesimal system (in scores of 20) for counting sheep. That "yan tan tethera" system is said to come from Cumbric, a Celtic language of the Brythonic sort, and gave prominence to the number fifteen— "sixteen," for example, was rendered as "one on/and fifteen." Fascinating stuff. I need to get out more. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

- Sure, but the fact non-base-ten measuring systems exist sort of argues against the idea that ten will be used inevitably by humans. I'm not saying that the ten fingers idea is wrong - it's just a counter-example which occurred to me.--Bob

- But that says nothing about how the numbers themselves are represented. Hindu-Arabic, Chinese and Roman numerals are all base-10. That someone decides to ignore this for unit measurements doesn't really mean anything apart from the fact that those unit measurements are based on obscure traditions of scale.

- Thinking about imperial measurements. Ounces, pounds, stones etc and distance Inches, feet, yards. Not very base ten there.--Bob

## Sheeps[edit]

Are (according to the lists on Wikipedia) conventionally counted by the twenties.

Should there be some mention of the base-12-ists (Dozenalists)? 86.191.125.198 (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

## British Royalty[edit]

For those amused by such things, the sequence will be:

- Elizabeth II
- Charles III
- William V
- George VII

ie 2, 3 5, 7 four prime numbers in a row.

It is reasonably likely it will be the late 21st century before a subsequent royal is counted. Anna Livia (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)