Talk:59 (number)

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

Fahrenheit 9/11[edit]

just a comment, don't know if it belongs in the article: Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 is said to contain 59 deceits. 141.217.173.158 01:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If it becomes a part of pop culture somehow, then it deserves to be mentioned in the number article. PrimeFan 20:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Atoms in the Universe[edit]

The number of atoms in the Universe ranges between the factorial of 59 (59!) and the factorial of 60 (60!).--24.22.111.99 04:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Kyle McKenzie Street[reply]

Religion[edit]

Was asked to provide a third opinion on this edit. If I understand correctly the passage is a Qur'an verse. If it is generally known/referred to by Muslims or others as "verse 59" I think that could qualify it as notable -- for example the Japanese constitution's anti-war clause is widely known as "Article 9." Otherwise I think it might not qualify here only on the basis of a casual association with the number 59 -- for example if a certain phrase happened to appear on page 59 of a particular literary work. I'm afraid my Google search was inconclusive, can the editor who is adding this content please explain further? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much irrelevant trivia[edit]

While some amount of trivia can be justified, this article goes too far. For example, that Defoe wrote Robinson when 59 is entirely unencyclopedic. (Note that even if we limit ourselves to significant works, most numbers between 20 and 80 will have several entries of the same kind.)

Less is more!

(The same problem likely applies to other number pages, but having stumbled onto this page by accident, I cannot say for certain.) 94.220.255.11 (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this really looks unencyclopedic. I'm removing it. --Tomaxer (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

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) 20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

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) 20:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

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) 20:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Religion - Septenary Masonic / English Cipher (base 7), Roman Catholic Rosary, and "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the U.S. Currency[edit]

Per the removal of the 59 items in "Other Fields" on12/7/2017 by RomaC in Prayer_beads#Christianity there is a highly inconsistent counting of beads "54 and an additional 5" that if one does the math computes to 59. Pardon for not spelling that simple math out and it's been corrected (see page/talk). This is highly significant historically and kind of even symbolic/ironic that someone didn't properly compute the number of beads.

Per "IN GOD WE TRUST" and "JESUS CHRIST" you have to do the cipher per the instructions on the page. I'll do it for you below but you're welcome to check my math:

JESUS CHRIST

J E S U S

4 5 6 6 6 (sum row)

4+5+6+6+6 = 27

C H R I S T

3 6 5 5 6 7

3+6+5+5+6+7 = 32

27+32 = 59 (JESUS + CHRIST)

AND

IN GOD WE TRUST

I N

5 1

5+1 = 6

G O D

7 2 4

7+2+4 = 13 (13 is a significant number on U.S. Currency - in particular the 1 dollar bill)

W E

4 5

4+5 = 9

T R U S T

7 5 6 6 7

7+5+5+6+6+7 = 31

6+13+9+31 = 59 (IN+GOD+WE+TRUST)

Therefore,

IN GOD WE TRUST = JESUS CHRIST = 59 in the Septenary (Masonic) Cipher

The cipher is sometimes called the "English Cipher" or "Septenary" (base 7) Cipher however it's the same structure in its relation to the English alphabet. It's actually encoded on the treasury seal of the United_States_one-dollar_bill (front, green wheel internally). However the intent of this edit is to point out only "59" and there is a punchline and due to historic significance of In_God_We_Trust in U.S. culture (note legal battles) would request this be kept as it's probably way more notable than many listed.

I didn't want to overcite, however its' better spelled out here. If you'd like to cite the page to the left vs right as it better spells it out you're welcome to do so. Either are rather simple to see to someone that can do basic arithmetic. I'd think anyone that can read English can also do this basic math of perhaps 1st or 2nd grade level.

Again thanks for your contributions to wikipedia. Please do not remove this (talk or edit). It has significance in U.S. Culture, the esoteric, and religion. If you have questions let me know or you'd like to discuss a better presentation.


Boarphomet (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we need reliable sources for adding content to the article, to verify it correctness and relevance. Adding up seemingly random numbers looks like original research. Gap9551 (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo names -[edit]

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)[reply]

14:59, "11:59"[edit]

It's probably not important, but I have doubts about the music entries for 14:59 and 11:59. "59th" and "'59" are bad enough. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:59_(number)&oldid=1200332179"