Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a259e9d1385ca23e

Jump to content

Talk:Strobogrammatic number

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Nagelfar in topic Is 2 Strobogrommatic or not?

2 and 7

[edit]

It seems to my memory that I saw, many years ago, a magic square in which the figures 2 and 7 were versions of each other rotated 180 degrees. The figure 7 had a curly tail. -- Wavelength (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Article name

[edit]

I suggest that the article title be changed to "Strobogrammatic numeral" rather than strobogrammatic number, since the property is a feature of the numeral used to represent the number, rather than directly of the number itself.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.149.218 (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is 2 Strobogrommatic or not?

[edit]

The opening makes a point that 0, 1, and 8 are, but then lists 2 as one of the numbers as well. Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5790:3920:1c33:4884:315a:a7a9 (talkcontribs) 16:21, October 27, 2018 (UTC)

I suppose it's how one considers the 'glyph' of the numeral. Technically the number/numeral "1" can even be discounted were the serifs to be considered. Nagelfar (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Upside down year

[edit]

I suggest that Upside down year be merged into Strobogrammatic number, possibly by changing the section Strobogrammatic number#Popular culture into a section "Upside down year" containing the lead of Upside down year. The term Upside down year should probably be retained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be no objection.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Good idea. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply