Jump to content

Talk:5/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Evolution of the glyph

Yeah, i know, for 4 and above these would make alot more sense with graphics to show the evolution. I'm going to work on some graphics. Numerao 20:04, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Five Alive

It looks like Five Alive has been duplicated here. Wiwaxia 04:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

5 in currency

What information on $5 notes is worth including in the article and which is not? This is an issue that also applies to a few other numbers like 1, 20, 100. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#RFC: Numbers in Currency is the place to discuss the issue as it applies to the currency numbers. PrimeFan 18:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed Merge template

I didn't see why Neelix felt a merge was needed, so I removed the template. --DryaUnda 10:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Old revisions moved

This page was the source of a very old (circa 2003) cut-and-paste page move to Five (TV). I have moved its original revisions (which were about the UK TV station) to that station's article. - Mark 14:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew

In one part of the article it translates the Hebrew way of writing 5 into 'he' in another into 'heh'. is it a typo? Is it both? Please can someone who knows the correct answer either change it or enlighten me about what it is. I would really like to know. --Madi186 17:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's "he". You can check the Bible if you want. --121.7.203.64 (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've seen "heh" before...heh heh.[citation needed] Protactinium-231 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics

Shouldn't the simple stuff come before the more complex stuff? I've heard of primes, pentagons and pentagles, but most of the other stuff sounds pretty heavy. --John Kershaw 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that 5 is the only prime, which can be written as the sum of the (2) preceeding primes, 2 and 3. This is true according to Bertrands postulate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.72.173 (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Something Awful Forums?

I'm removing the bit about a 5 being the highest honor one can receive on the Something Awful Forums (in the religion & culture section). That is incredibly irrelevant/extraneous information. 140.247.248.13 (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

voted this post a 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.209.28 (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (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.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thailand

Does 5 or 555 have a special meaning in Thailand?--达伟 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe 5 has the same significance in Thailand as 3 does in many Western traditions: 5 is seen as the minimum size of a family, the smallest number of sides for a polygon, etc. (Triangles and squares are not seen as shapes in their own right, but rather fragments of a pentagon. That isn't to say Thai mathematicians are incapable of treating them as such; but traditionally the pentagon is thought of as the simplest shape.) You can look at Florian Cajori's book for more information. LarryLadd (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Christian foundational documents

I find counting the number of Christian foundational documents as five to be arbitrary. In the canonical New Testament, there are four gospels, one history, 13 or 14 Pauline epistles, 7 or 8 other epistles, and one apocalypse. Why five? In any case, I'm even more sceptical that anyone putting together the canonical New Testament did so with the books of Moses as a dominating factor; it's a combination of coincidence and artificial selection on the count of Christian foundational documents.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Jason Kidd

What does Jason Kidd have to do with ANYTHING, especially since he doesn't even wear 5 anymore... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.70.58 (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree, removed sports images with people not named in the article. 06:47, 10 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!

  • 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'

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:23, 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) 20:24, 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) 20:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet another, albeit controversial, use of the number 5...

Somewhere under "Miscellaneous fields" or perhaps in a new "Global economics" Section, we should probably mention the Five Jew Bankers. There probably should be an Article on them as well. Now, I don't claim to know whether they actually exist or not, and whether they do is a controversial issue as I understand. Nevertheless, they represent a famous use of the number 5 in particular, since there are supposed to be only 5 of them. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Source? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I first caught wind of the concept from Sea Lab 2021, but apparently it's not original to the show. That's why I'm still looking for where the screen writers for the show had heard of them. I suspect that the clearly fraudulent Protocols of Zion might have mentioned the Five Jew Bankers, who are probably not original there either, but I haven't searched it exhaustively. (Notice how I never said I was sure they existed except in popular belief, although I also can't disprove their existence.) I hate how Google always gives fora as top hits. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Phoebe, the cardinal number that is the sum of four and one

I don't understand this (i.e. "Huh?"). Maybe someone who does would care to add it, with appropriate explanation, to the article?

Apparently, if you throw a 4 and a 1 when playing craps, it's called a "Little Phoebe" (a crap player with a classical education?), but I'm not authoritative on that either. Any takers?

Nat (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a dispute: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/dice-play/CrapsGlossary.htm reports a roll of 3 to be a "Phoebe" or "Little Phoebe". And I can't find a source which we would consider reliable for any of these. "The Free Dictionary" is probably the best of the sources I can find, and it's not really usable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2013 (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)

Digit 5's origin

I can relate the Y-like glyph that this article says is the ancestor of the digit 5 to a 5 by rotating the Y and moving the horizontal (vertical before rotation) line to the top of the curve. But, how does this Y-like glyph actually relate to the number 5?? We know that:

  • 1 came from a lifted finger.
  • 2 came from connecting 2 straight lines
  • 3 came from connecting 3 straight lines
  • 4 came from a 4-point cross.

But what about 5?? How does the glyph relate to the number 5?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Retired jersey numbers

Per WP:PRESERVE, here is the list of retired #5 jersey numbers and F1 cars that were mentioned in the article:

This material may be of interest for a future List of retired numbers in sports article. — JFG talk 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Bingo names -

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

"Cinq" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cinq. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 12:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

"➎" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ➎. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 20:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Discordianism

I wonder if Discordianism is such an important religion that it should be in the list of religions which ascribe some significance to the number five. (Great religion, for sure, but perhaps not very notable...) Richard Gill (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Gill110951, I had never heard of it before but I see that there is an article about it so at least within the context of Wikipedia it qualifies as notable (subject to the possibility that a close review of the article would reach a different conclusion— should that happen, we might revisit this entry.) S Philbrick(Talk) 16:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Five senses?

This page includes a bit about there being five senses, but the Senses page it links to definitely describes more than five. Maybe change it to something like "in Western tradition there are 5 senses", since I doubt it's a universal thing. It's commonly said and still taught in english-speaking schools, but definitely on the list of have-to-unlearn-that-later concepts these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.108.247 (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

On this same track, this page also lists at the bottom the 'five tastes' (sweet, sour, umami etc.) which was roundly discredited decades ago. Again, I thnk this shoud be altered to something similar to make clear that it was at one time believed there were only five tastes, but it has since been debunked.

Planned removals

The Roman numeral V (usually) stands for the fifth-discovered satellite of a planet or minor planet (e.g. Jupiter V).

This is roughly like saying that you can find the number 5 on the fifth page of printed books. A true statement, but not in the exactly an interesting property of the number--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

"꤅" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ꤅ and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#꤅ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

"It is the only Fibonacci number that is equal to its position."

For 5 to be ðe fifþ number in ðe Fibonacci Sequence, it has to be counted from 1,1,2,3,5... Ðis makes 1 ðe first number in ðe sequence, meaning five isn't ðe only Fibonacci number equal to its position. Maybe it should be updated to say "It is one of two Fibonacci numbers that are equal to their positions, the other being 1." IndigoGollum (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

checkY Done ! Radlrb (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@IndigoGollum: Yes, but 1 does not have "a position in the sequence", it has two positions in the sequence, first, and second. So it would have to be "It is one of two Fibonacci numbers that are equal to one of their positions in the sequence, the other being 1." But this is getting ridiculous. This is not in any reasonable sense a notable property of the number 5, so I will delete it. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I would not be so quick as to make that assertion. A simple analysis reveals hidden connections: the regular pentagon with five sides has a close relationship with the golden ratio, which can be calculated with a continued fraction and continued square root that involves just 1s; in a sequence whose limits of quotients of members in its sequence approaches the golden ratio. So, 1 and 5 are the only two Fibonacci numbers that are equal to their indexes. It is not a trivial connection, in light where many sequences also do not start with 1, but with 0 or 2 (as is the case with this one, which is defined in other ways as well; starting with 1). The simplest, core properties tend to be the bedrock for much deeper properties; if you trivialize these essential cores, you will loose sight of what comes later. No datum in mathematics is trivial. I am going to return this point. Radlrb (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem with your approach is that eventually the article for every natural number (at least up to 42) will contain more or less a complete encyclopedia of mathematics. All the numbers are connected together; of course, we understand that, but an *encyclopedia* article on a number like 5 has to be a very selective view of the most salient properties of 5. I have no idea what your sentence (beginning "The simplest, core properties...") is supposed to mean - it is, strictly, vacuous. Every property of every integer is there because the integers are the integers. There is no "causation"; whether or not you observe that the Fibonacci sequence includes two integers appearing at their self-indexed positions, it remains the case that in general a polynomial of degree 5 or more cannot be solved by radicals. You have been adding huge amounts of material to the articles on integers, and I think much of this is not appropriate. To take a random paragraph:

Overall, the fourth dimension contains five fundamental Weyl groups that form a finite number of uniform polychora: [...] accompanied by a fifth or sixth general group of unique 4-prisms of Platonic and Archimedean solids. All of these uniform 4-polytopes are generated from twenty-five uniform polyhedra, which include the five Platonic solids, fifteen Archimedean solids counting two enantiomorphic forms, and five prisms. There are also a total of five Coxeter groups that generate non-prismatic Euclidean honeycombs in 4-space, alongside five compact hyperbolic Coxeter groups that generate five regular compact hyperbolic honeycombs with finite facets, as with the order-5 5-cell honeycomb and the order-5 120-cell honeycomb, both of which have five cells around each face. Compact hyperbolic honeycombs only exist through the fourth dimension, or rank 5, with paracompact hyperbolic solutions existing through rank 10. Likewise, analogues of four-dimensional hexadecachoric or icositetrachoric symmetry do not exist in dimensions n ⩾ 5; however, there are prismatic groups in the fifth dimension which contains prisms of regular and uniform 4-polytopes that have and symmetry. There are also five regular projective 4-polytopes in the fourth dimension, all of which are hemi-polytopes of the regular 4-polytopes, with the exception of the 5-cell. Only two regular projective polytopes exist in each higher dimensional space.

I cannot see why a copy of this paragraph should not be added to the articles for 2, 4, 6, 10, 15, 25, 120, and I may have missed some. I do not think that this can be described as "properties of 5". Imaginatorium (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
It is one of the first (definitely cannot be copied in 10, 15, or 25 in its entirety; only 4 or 5) with many figures and notions with symmetries having or rooted in order 120. Continuous with fifth dimensional expressions of which there are not many equivalent forms in higher dimensions (rooted in their dimension). Let's just say, it is the first and only number where this can be said neatly and in worthwhile form. I see no problem with this, especially if in time this will be standardized anyways. Even though this is surprising to say, it goes together very well; maybe you're missing some points? There is so much going on in here with 5, and related only with 5, for 15 and 120. Radlrb (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
These connections are rooted in 5, which is the primary point. In truth, how large we want to develop these articles is very relevant; all small numbers less than 20 can be augmented in this form, I believe (including many others). Radlrb (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

5

it is just a number lolz 199.250.224.89 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

It is simply a wonderful number. Radlrb (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:5/Archive_1&oldid=1203656751"