Talk:666 (number)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 666 (number). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Factorization format

I just reverted Yarnalgo's change to factorization. While I myself don't feel strongly either way, the usual format for other numbers seems to be math mode, not plain text, and it sould be the same for 666. Yours, Huon 12:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Something I heard

Has anyone else ever heard this theory. I have heard it twice, but if anyone has any more imformation on its orgin please let me know.

There is a theory/idea regarding the biblical meaning of 666. Man was created on the sixth day and the Supreme Being is three persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Therefore the number 6 represents man and the fact that it is repeated three times implies that man is trying to be God. SouthJunkie 14:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

- There is some validity to this because "7" is considered by many theologians to be "God's number" and representing perfection or completion (the world was created in 6 days, God rested on the 7th). Some links:

- I couldn't find any reference but the Orthodox(Eastern) Church's theory is that the number of the Beast as found in the original text(Greek numerals:letter chi, letter ksi and letter stigma) represent the Man(stigma:value 6,created the sixth day) trying to reach God(Ch'i: value 600, first letter of Ch'rist) and the serpent(ksi:value 60,is used because of the letter's resemblance ) intervene.

Panin is particularly relevant to the discussion in that he did a lot of work on investigating the numbers, and the numerical structure of the Bible. While his work is controversial, is to provide some background to the significance of numbers like 666 and 7 in Christian culture and the Bible as a whole. --Gar2chan 23:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

24.234.113.226

Stop vandalising the page, no one cares who Dane is. --67.181.131.193 00:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Some mathematical fun with 666

I got this by email some time ago, but I think some/all of it exist also in mathworld. I'll let the other honourable editors to decide wether or not use the following info.

If we take the first seven prime numbers,
  2² + 3² + 5² + 7² + 11² + 13² + 17² = 666
we get the Number of the Beast.

Uh, the first prime number is 1 isn't it?

No, the definition of a prime number is a number divisible by itself and one, or having only two factors. One can only be divided by one so only has one factor and is not a prime number ---Cheeseman1 15:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The sum of 1 to 6*6 is
  1 + 2 + ... + 6*6 = 666

666 has the powers of 6 and of 6's divisors:
  1⁶ - 2⁶ + 3⁶ = 666

666 is a complete number, it contains all the numbers in a row:
  1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 567 + 89 = 666
And also
  123 + 456 + 78 + 9 = 666
And now reversed:
  9 + 87 + 6 + 543 + 21 = 666

Remove all the 500+100+50+10+5+1 nonsense

Most of this is trivial, and essentially unimportant. Many base ten systems will arrive at this same value, because they simply use a value of 10^n and 10^n/2 denominations to decrease the number of elements required.

As such, adding up all the Euro bills will get you 666, just because each tens place has a 1 and 5. It seems like an extremely stupid, and uninteresting feature for me.

wrong, 500+200+100+50+20+10+5 = 885 Euro --androl 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If it must be kept, a more interesting phrasing should be used that expresses the reason why all these 500+100+50+10+5+1s add up to 666 rather than just mentioning that they do. Something like, "While not the most spectacular fact, since each digit of the number 666 is equal to 5+1, numerous counting systems will add up to 666 if you use each element, such as the roman numeral system, Japanese yen coins, and European bills."

Honestly, I relate this nature of 666 to the same level of useless information as "666 is the 333rd even number", it's like, hey, if you think about it for two seconds, you see that it wasn't even interesting to think about for two seconds.

--- It's not trivial, because it was part of how the numbering system and powers were constructed in those number systems (and ours), as the article notes elsewhere - dclxvi in latin, using every numeral once, or 600 60 6 in the Greek, which the roman system based itself on. It seemed magical, and was probably part of the basis for the legendary (if not right) meaning. It would be more interesting however to link something to the Greek and roman numbering systems.

bar code

I heard a 'rumour' that the codes at either end and in the middle of the typical bar code are codes for 6, symbolising 666. The bar code is oft hypothesised as being a potential 'mark of the beast'. Any evidence for this, I wonder...

666 Techno Megamix everyheard? --Jingofetts 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

    Urban legend.  I purpose adding it to the article. http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/barcode.asp 71.139.55.50

you're talking about EAN-13 codes. I already added that to Number of the Beast --androl 14:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Isaiah 66:6

6 Hear that uproar from the city, 
      hear that noise from the temple! 
      It is the sound of the LORD 
      repaying his enemies all they deserve.

134.117.137.190 07:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

User:122.162.142.22 put the following comment in the article, I have moved it to here on the talk page. Dinsdagskind 14:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Metric system: While various systems like FPS have given way to metric system which basically is a decimal system. Eg 10 milli metre is 1 centi metre.

Time: Time is still measured in units of 6. 6 x 10 = 60 seconds in a minute, 6 x 10 = 60 minutes in 1 hour, 6 x 12 = 24 hours a day, 6 x 2 = 12 months a year.

Space: 6 x 60 = 360 degrees, a measure of space.

If the digit six was indespensible, i really wonder why haven;t we modified the units of time and space in such a way that metric system takes over?

Thanks tata_triple_six@yahoo.co.uk

616

666 isn't the number of the beast. Which renders the entire section about the Devil false. The oldest copy of the New Testament known reduces the number to 616. It was also on the televison show QI. [1] I'm not saying remove the section. After all, 666 is still the most recognized. But at least include 616.

This article is about the number 666. The short summary in this article is not, as far as I know, false: the bible that most people read does say 666, and whether or not this was the number John of Patmos actually perceived in his vision, it is the number that have percolated into the public metaphor-space. You don't see rock bands calling themselves or their songs 616 when they want to shock their parents. The main article Number of the Beast contains discussion of the 616/665/666 issue, and that it where it ought to be. –Henning Makholm 01:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative visions

What about to add subject with this reference:

http://my666.boom.ru/666_en.html

That speaks AntiChrist, who was born to be free! Who was born under sign 666!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickols k (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

isopsephy

Shouldn't there be something about isopsephy* on this page? *(the greek system of adding up the number values of the letters in a word to form a single number)

Becouse greek for 'The great beast' is 'To Mega Therion'. When you write this in greek (which i can't on a computer), and use isopsephy, the values will add up to 666.

Jaberucg (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of such sums is to make claims or speculation about the beast, and it's covered in Number of the Beast. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

'Things going smoothly'

"In Chinese culture, 666 sounds a lot like the words 'Things going smoothly'."

There are many Chinese languages, which one; Mandarin? Cantonese? etc? 71.222.88.249 07:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

At least Mandarin: "liù, liù, liù". Not sure which tone "smooth" takes, but I'm fairly certain (without looking it up and verifying it) that it's also "liu" so it would at least sound fairly similar, if not exactly the same. Lou 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be "666" (six six six) not "666" (six-hundred sixty-six).

In Japanese that would be "Roppyaku Rokujū Roku". "In Chinese culture, 666 sounds a lot like the words 'Things going smoothly'." is not an appropriate sentence for Wikipedia. I think it would be "In Chinese language" anyways...

In Chinese it is "Liu-bai Liu-shi Liu" which really doesn't sound much like "Things going smoothly"... moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 22:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent Addition

I agree with Lars; this bit about the multiplication and addition of 6s to get to 666 is trivial and need not be included on the page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More to the point: Any number divisible by 6 can be written that way, and is nothing but a complicated way of writing such a number in base 6. Lars T. (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Doom Computer Game

The article claims that Doom uses TCP port 666 however the original Doom and Doom2 never supported TCP/IP. Origianl Doom for DOS only supported Null-model Cable, Modem, and IPX. Perhaps Doom95 or user createdDoom engines support TCP and use port 666. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.236.116.94 (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ah! Yeah I found it true because it is very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.147.64.129 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just A Question

Is there any significance of the 666 talents of gold received by King Solomon in 1 Kings 10:14 (presumably this is an indication of his greed being at odds with God etc.) and could this be linked into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.253.22 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ugly math section

The first two paragraphs are hard to read because of the font they use. Why is it necessary to write $666$ in those two paragraphs and yet it's ok to use 666 almost immediately after? Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It also won't allow you to copy and paste for other uses (that is, answering a question on Yahoo Answers). If Wikipedia is "Creative Commons", it should be set up to be easily usable).50.96.25.60 (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Number of the beast in intro

@Arthur Rubin:: You agree that something along those lines belongs in the lead, but point out problems with the source.

@Tahc:: The citation you gave is incomplete. All it says is "Beale 1999, p. 718," with "Beale 1999" being a link to a reference that does not exist in this article.

Looking at Number of the Beast, I see that the full citation is:

Beale, G.K. (1999). Revelation : a commentary on the Greek text (3. Dr. ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans. ISBN 978-0-8028-2174-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

So, the citation:

Beale, Gregory K. (1999). The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 718. ISBN 080282174X. Retrieved 9 July 2012.

...Should begin to work. I'll check through a few of my books for the "in popular culture" part. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell (before google books refuses to display additional pages), the statement as given (by Tarc is not supported by the reference. I've added a sentence loosely summarizing what is in the "number of the beast" section. I don't think more should be in the lead, although corrections would be appreciated, as I'm not Christian. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've actually been diving into my sources on magic and occultism first rather than my sources on Christianity, since 666 being the number of the Beast is important in Thelema as well (if not moreso than Christianity, since that's how the religion's founder identified himself on multiple occasions, whereas in Christianity it only describes a single character in a single book, and only in the majority of manuscripts instead of the totality). I'll add a source for Christianity as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I am certainly devilish on occasion, I think you pinged the wrong name there. :) Tarc (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Any suggestions for or complaints about the new version? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian would have wanted to ping me. See below. tahc ^chat 03:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I did, see above. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You used the name of a user named "Tarc". That is what I was referring to. 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Check again, that was Arthur Rubin. I wrote Tahc. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

@Ian.thomson: and @Arthur Rubin: Ian.thomson's text is problematic in a number of ways. Let me sum-up this way, I think the question of who or what "the beast" is not needed in this article at all-- but certainly not in the summary in the lead. We might consider the question (who or what "the beast" is) as open to debate, but not all options are equally good. It hence best to leave it all out of the lead. tahc ^chat 22:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but the Guiley and Merton citations I gave do support that 666 is commonly interpreted as the number of the beast. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe the ping failed, and I'm just now getting back to my watchlist from 10 December on. In any case, I would prefer to link only to the number of the beast; the additional detail may be controversial. In particular, {{bibleverse-nb|Revelation|13}} should not be there, as the specific (English) wording is different in different "translations" (or interpretations) of the Book of Revelation, and I question the link to "Greek numerals" in the infobox, at least with that reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No. It is not different in different translations, nor is it different in different interpretations. It is different in 2 manuscripts (out of many)-- papyrus 115 and the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. I guess choices in textual criticism can be called "interpretations" but that is not what is normally meant by "interpretation" in Biblical scholarship.

But none of this seems related to your objection to the link to 13. All of this is about Revelation 13, so the link to Revelation 13 is vital. Maybe that will be more clear if I point out the view that the 616 reading is original is WP:Fringe, hence every English translation ever made will say "666". tahc ^chat 21:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

{{bibleverse-nb}} seems to link to a particular translation/interpretation of the Bible, which is clearly inappropriate where we are discussing different versions. (At least in 616; here, in 666, where all English translations have 666, there is no dispute. I question the use of the template in general, even if hosted at the WMF, it may not be neutral. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with linking to a particular translation. If you want all outside links to the Bible removed, maybe you should bring that up at Template talk:bibleverse-nb. No biblical translation is perfect but, like Wikipedia, nearly all seek to add no bias -- and nothing in Wikipedia claims we link only to perfect translations.

If you do object to the particular translation used now (NIV), then we can talk about changing it. I don't think we need to link to any certain particular translation -- just some particular translation. tahc ^chat 21:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Number 666 and the Twelve Tribes of Israel

Dear editors, I ask you to examine the possibility of including information and quotation of my article "Number 666 and the Twelve Tribes of Israel" in your text to improve it and bring it up to date. The article can be found at the following address: http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/revista-biblica/68_3-4_191.pdf It was published in Spanish in "Revista Biblica" (Buenos Aires, Argentina); but it appears translated into English, Spanish, French, Italian and Portuguese in that address. It contains new details and data on the issue. Thank you for your attention and analysis. Adylson Valdez. April/05/2016. 179.98.244.113 (talk)

Meaningless numerical coincidences

"Notice that 36 = 15 + 21; 15 and 21 are also triangular numbers; and 15² + 21² = 225 + 441 = 666"
True enough, but in general, any square number can be written as the sum of two consecutive triangular numbers, and the sum of the squares of these triangular numbers equals the number triangled. For example,

4=1+3; 1+2+3+4=10; 1²+3²=10.
9=3+6, 1+2+3...+9=45, 3²+6²=45.

Including this in the article suggests that this property is some special remarkable fact about 666, that contributes to its mystical prestige.

By the way, I also noticed the startling fact that (15/21) / (36/666) = (666/36) / (21/15).
159.172.43.6 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

whither omen?!

was any of this really "widely recognized" before the omen?

maybe some religious people spoke of it, but i don't think it was at all widespread until that movie.

i agree that "popular references are [therefore] too numerous to list" but the omen is different. that was the SOURCE of everything else!

should have a major section in this article. 209.172.23.13 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

...You've gotta be trolling. That or you need to go start paying attention in history class. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

troll, know thyself. UFOs, ESP, palm reading, tarot cards, and religious numerology never a big part of any history class i've ever seen. perhaps u meant "seance"?

in any case, search confirms that the concept of 666 = satan/antichrist exploded in the late 70s. draw your own conclusions.

smattering of hits before that among conspiracy nuts, but it certainly wasn't "widespread" .209.172.23.142 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to realize that the majority of the western world was what we would now consider extremely religious before the modern era, especially if they were literate (and not many people were). That "smattering" you found (if you did a proper search) wasn't just conspiracy nuts, those were most literate westerners before the 1700s. They did not think the way we do now. See Number of the Beast for more information: There was earnest speculation (not just attempted pop culture thrills) ever since the Book of Revelation was written in the late first century AD. Heck, if Attilio Mastrocinque's "From Jewish Magic to Gnosticism" is correct, obsession over it might actually date to the second century BC, as a number of amulets (which, back then, most people believed had medical properties) featured characters that could have been the inspiration for "666" being the Mark of the Beast. It exacerbated the English Civil War.

Wikipedia does not have any editor draw their own conclusion, all it does is summarize professionally published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. Unless you can point to a book, journal, or scholarly website that states that The Omen is responsible for most 20th/21st century references to the Mark of the Beast, you have no ground to stand on. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2017

This edit request to 666 (number) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In section 'number of the beast', the text 'chi xi stigma' should likely read 'chi xi sigma'. Iliastsangaris (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done "stigma" appears to be correct. Perhaps you should look a the linked Stigma (letter) and Number of the Beast Meters (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

This edit request to 666 (number) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Harleyulric3459 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: You have used the template Edit-semi-protected, but you have not proposed any change. Please say something like “change XXX to YYY” or “add AAA between BBB and CCC”. Thanks, qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 16:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Babylonian "angle"

In Revelations, The Beast is also associated with [Babylon]. The Babylonian numbering system is [Sexagesimal], ie base sixty. The [shekel] also originates in ancient [Babylon], [Sumer], and [Akkad]. There are 180[base sixty] grains to a [shekel], 60 [base sixty] shekels to a [mina], and 60 [base sixty] minas to a [talent]. Obviously overlooked, there are 60 [base sixty]seconds to a minute, 60 [base sixty] minutes to an hour, and in ancient [Persian calendar], there were 360 [base sixty] days in one year. There are 360 [base sixty] degrees in a circle, 60 [base sixty] arc minutes to a degree, 60 [base sixty]arc seconds to an arc minute. The sexagesimal numbering system cannot be ignored in any attempt to understand the human significance of the number 666. The context of 666 in its associations with the [number of the Beast], [Babylon], [evil], [currency], [mammon], [time], [earth], and [global commerce], are very important in letting 'him who has understanding' recognize the significance. 134.117.137.189 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

God's alternative to this beast system is here: [2]Wikinger 13:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Babylon is mentioned several times in the book of Revelation. It was the ancient capital of what is now present day Iraq. At the time of the first Iraq war, the United Nations issued several resolutions. Resolution 666 severely restricted the goods that could be traded with Irag. This resolution is almost identical to the 666 Prophecy -Nothing can be bought or sold without the mark of the Beast. The belief that the beast is the Devil comes from the popular film "The Omen". Several Beasts in the book of Revelation are on the side of the Angels. The term "beast" should be interpreted as someone with power or authority. This is the role of the United Nations Secretary General. He used the authority of a United Nations vote to start the first Iraq war. The statement that the mark will be on the hand or forehead is - like much of the text - pure fantasy to present a strong visual image. We can only hope that Armageddon is still in the distant future - but it is coming ever closer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.173.35 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think links to this would look good with the Greek and roman numbering system above, as the Babylonian empire influenced mathematics and astronomy strongly. I'm not suggesting anything extensive, but putting it all together in one small section with links to other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.179.151 (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Removing reference to 616

I've removed the following:

In 2005, an early fragment of papyrus was revealed that gives the Number of the Beast as 616. However, other early witnesses, such as Irenaeus, dispute the reading "616." 666 remains the most widely recognized number.[3]

My explanation is at Talk:Number of the Beast (numerology)#Not 616.

- - there is no such explanation or in its history. This was apparently removed at someones whim, and should therefore be put back if that was the case. ***. It might be wrong, or trite, but the original reference appears to be true - so it would usually be reworded not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.179.151 (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

616 is relevant; see the explanation here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkZqFtYtqaI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.169.141 (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

666 file permissions

In computing, on the Unix operating system 666 is the file permission mask meaning "read-write access for everyone".

More precisely, it is the octal number 0666. See also umask.

666 file permissions could either be very good or very bad dependent on the context and your point of view...

Suggest this is added to the 666 article, as Unix is very common, e.g. most web servers on the internet are Unix-based. 81.128.174.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"See also"

What's the purpose of linking to 600 at the end? Perhaps that should be removed. —Simetrical 05:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've removed it. —Simetrical 20:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Conjectural Phrasing?

I've removed the following from the article:

Curious indeed that the Roman Empire was the most prominent empire in the world at the time this number originally became symbolically attached to "the Devil".

It sounds conjectural and opinionated, IMHO. If anyone wishes to reinstate it, I've copied it here in case it needs to be put back in. The sentence comes after "It is also curious that the Roman numeral representation of the number 666 (DCLXVI) uses once each of the Roman numeral symbols with values under 1,000, and that they are in exact reverse order of their respective values (D = 500, C = 100, L = 50, X = 10, V = 5, I = 1)." Mitsukai 15:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   That statement obviously disregards the Chinese Empire, which is equal or greater to the Roman
Empire.- annoymous
   
   Yes, but here <annoymous> assumes that there is only one force acting at a given time, however one   
cannot negate the fact that to every force, there is an equal and opposite force opposing it.

In Mathematics

I found that 666=(6•6•6)+(6•6•6)+(6•6•6)+(6+6+6). The same may, of course, be written simply in exponential notation as 3((2³•3³)+(2¹•3¹)), but in basic arithmetic operations without limiting to least common factors, its form is of note. To see if this is a more general pattern among repdigits, I conducted a few trials, but did not find other occurrences. I have no proof on its uniqueness. Perhaps this is but an artifact of some more complex or non-obvious-to-me mathematical principle, which is why I have put it in the Talk section. Multiannis (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The expression effectively multiplies 6 by 111, which is 3×(6²+1). Only 6 works here, because n²+1 isn't a factor of 111 for other n. Certes (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As "666" seems to be edit filtered, can someone add a link to the disambiguation page?

Change the hatnote

{{for|the year 666 AD|AD 666}}

to

{{about|the numerical value|the year 666 AD|AD 666|other uses|666 (disambiguation)}}

-- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)