Talk:Piphilology

attribution

The Asimov-attributed quote given here seems the most familiar to me, but I found several other versions from googling:

• How I need a drink, alcoholic (in nature|of course), after the (tough|heavy) (lectures|chapters) involving quantum mechanics.

Anyone know what the original was? And whether it was actually Asimov? Most don't give credit; this one credited Sir James Jeans, this one says 'anonymous', this newsgroup post credits George Polya, and so on. Mostly could be lazy (mis)quoting, but it'd be good for Wikipedia to get it right :-) -- Wapcaplet 04:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

p.s. - our article on George Polya even attributes this quote to him.

I've added another variation to the article, and removed the Asimov attribution until someone can provide a definite source for the quote. -- Wapcaplet 01:55, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is simple: The phrase already existed, and then Isaac Asimov MODIFIED IT by replacing "in nature" with "of course". To attribute the whole thing to Asimov is wrong, but to give Asimov no credit at all is also wrong!98.67.105.234 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Mnemonic for zero

"How is zero encoded?" Submitted by an unidentified person.

Well, it takes a while until the first zero shows up (33rd decimal digit), and mnemonics aren't that good for memorizing really long sequences (people who get that far have probably already realized that they should use a better method). I suppose you could use a special rule, e.g. a word starting with 'z'. Fredrik | talk 01:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IMO the most obvious solution is to use ten-letter words.--Army1987 12:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Zero is not encoded. Coding and encoding have nothing to do with it. This article is about the crafting of mnemonics.98.67.105.234 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Some systems for making mnemonics use an exclamation point for zero.

Such things are important for creating mnemonics for numbers like "e", which contain zero much earlier in their expansions.98.67.105.234 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ten letter words for numeral 0 looks good to me.

I like a further compaction of Pi Before any attempted memorisation: convert Pi to Base Sixteen, wherein 5 Base Sixteen digits contain information equal to 6 Base Ten digits, a modest but useful gain of brevity for human purposes.

Odds are it was Originally Calculated in Base 2 or Base 16 using a digital computer anyway.

First devise set of letters representing all 16 digits:

0 h 1 k 2 s 3 c 4 d 5 z 6 v 7 p 8 t 9 y A n B m C g D l E w F f

Next take pairs of these hexadecimal names and supply a simple short vowel between each letter pair, i use short unaccented a as in above.

This produces an expression of Pi in Base 256, thus another data compression by a factor of two for human intellect.

hac a sad caf van tat taz nac hat lac kac kay tan saw hac pah pac dad ...

16 Base 256 digits containing about equal information to 36 Base Ten digits.

RAFS

🐱🐱🐱 FritzYCat (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Base 256 van be improved to Base 1024 by using a set of vowels to represent combinations of 2 more data bits.

I haven't done this, but someone with a digital computer could easily do it. I propose inserting one bit above lower hex digit, then adding one bit above higher digit, for naming and graphic compatability between Base 256 and Base 1024.

Leave unaccented a to indicate 8 bit Base 256, Then use unaccented e i o u to represent 00 01 10 11 combinations of these two separately inserted bits.

dug dis hep cot would obviously be in Base 1024,equivalent to 8 Base 32 digits, 10 hexadecimal digits, or about 12 decimal digits.

Split into 8 Base 32 digits we have:

d+16 g+16 d+0 s+16 h+0 p+0 c+16 t+0

We might need few more than 4 such digits for much practical data memorisation: we're talking Powers of 1024, for numbers up to a something above Base Ten 1,000,000,000,000.

1,099,511,627,775. 🐱🐱🐱 FritzYCat (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

is it really (censored)?

Wikipedia is not supposed to hide questionable content...

I changed the word back . Politeness wins (Paladin 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)).

What year?

I think this article is rather poorly equipped w.r.t. what is available as mnemonics for pi. Also, on the page on pi one sees "Ever since computers have computed billions of digits...", but I can imagine that some of these mnemonics are older than the computation of a billion digits. Is there any information about (approximate) years? — MFH:Talk 18:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Use some common sense. The mnemonic that refers to "quantum mechanics" was created shortly after the origin of quantum mechanics, which was in the 1920s. That was a decade in the life of Sir James Jeans. Before that, the phrase "quantum mechanics" was an unknown one. In contrast, Isaac Asimov was born in 1920, so he was just a boy when quantum mechanics was developed by Heisenburg and Schoedinger - and Asimov was a high school student in the first part of the 1930s. He graduated early, at the age of 16, and he entered Columbia University as a freshman in 1936. He completed his B.S. in chemistry there in 1940, and at that time, quantum mechanics was a subject for graduate school.98.67.105.234 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Then a little later, Asimov modified the mnemonic slightly by changing "alcoholic in nature" to "alcoholic, of course". He deserves credit for this! 98.67.105.234 (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Numeric rhymes

I added a piece to the English section giving a numeric rhyme for the first 100 digits composed by mathematician John Conway. I hope no one minds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.253.26.10 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

No, that's definitely a worthwhile contribution. It might be worth trying to put it in another format, although I'm not sure whether a table would work all that well. Unfortunately the link doesn't seem to work; could you check it out? –EdC 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

-->

The link worked for me. It is a very long page, and you have to search for the sixth occurrence of "Conway." I found another link to conway's original post. I'll use that.

Yes, that works better. Thanks. –EdC 20:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

bad link

Does anyone know what became of http://www.cilea.it/~bottoni/www-cilea/F90/piph.htm Andreas P. Hatzipolakis' PiPhilology, said to be a "site with hundreds of examples of mnemonics for π"? Ditto http://theory.cs.iitm.ernet.in/~arvindn/pi/ said to allow one to memorize "1000 digits of pi". Robert Greer (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, does anyone have a non-broken link for Near A Raven? If I remember correctly, the poem from Cadaeic Cadenza is not the same one (it's just a very close one) - and anyway, there were many comments at the original site that obviously weren't on Cadaeic one... --January First-of-May (for fans of Star Trek here), December 3, 2008 15:30 local (12:30 UTC)

Near A Raven can be retrieved from archive.org. I just went and updated the link to suit. (http://web.archive.org/web/20070505070508/http://users.aol.com/s6sj7gt/mikerav.htm) 173.88.213.120 (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Method for memorizing digits in a random access system, to thousands of digits.

I tried to add a link to my blog where I describe a method for memorizing digits in a random access system. The link was removed by a bot (XLinkBot). I then tried to undo the removal with an explanation, but then the link was taken away by WBOSITG using something called Huggle.

I wonder if my blog which I link to does not fit to the situation, and if so, what can I do to make it fit, so that a link can be appropriate.

I am presently using my method to memorize 10,000 digits of pi. I have so far done 2,300 digits, and presently I increase that by 100 per day.

Here is the link to my blog http://bigparadox.wordpress.com/

87.227.64.221 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Magnus, Stockholm, Sweden

Key Pad method

I created a new method I find extremely effective.

I wrote a program for my calculator that will allow me to type in the digits of pi, and when I mess up it stops me, displays how many I did correctly, and shows the next five digits. This method allows you to notice mistakes instantly, but much more importantly learning it on a key bad allows you to see designs and not just memorize numbers. For example there is a sequence where you would punch each of the corners of the key pad, and one where you do a diagonal line across it. Using this method I learned the first 211 digits with relative ease.

(millyissa 9:35, 13 March 2009).

I might like to add that I did the same last year, but really, this isn't of much significance is it? You might want to see Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and No original research. CHL (aka yse) (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Better Graph?

I believe a logarithmic scale for the Y-axis would be more appropriate.--User:wjmelements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.16.65.43 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Andriy Slyusarchuk and 30 million digits of π

User:NazarK added in a paragraph claiming that Andriy Slyusarchuk has memorized 30 million digits of π. Whilst the sources cited may support the secondary claims that (1) 30 million digits of pi were printed in 20 volumes of text, (2) the president of Ukraine officially congratulated him, and (3) a possibility of financing a dedicated research center for development of Mr. Slyusarchuk's methodology had been discussed, there is nothing to substantiate the unbelievable claim that he has memorized 30 million digits of π, and so I have deleted the paragraph. To prove that you have memorized π you have to recite it back in front of reliable witnesses in a controlled environment. But to recite 30 million digits of π at one digit a second would take almost a year (347 days) if you did it non-stop 24 hours a day, seven days a week -- realistically it would take several years to do. It is just not possible! BabelStone (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It is possible. Andriy Slyusarchuk has been involved into many demonstrations witnessed by respectable scientists, Ph.D. holders and heads of subdepartments in Universities. I live in the same city with him and personally know the people who witnessed his abilities. He's able to memorize a page of text photographically after looking at it for a few seconds. During demonstrations, he has been randomly asked to tell the digits of pi printed on certain pages and locations of the 20 volume printout, which is grouped into orderly arranged tables. He successfully went through this kind of test multiple times. See the link to Book of Records of Ukraine ( http://www.book.adamant.ua/akt/2slysar4uk/1.htm ). It lists the members of commission witnessing his demonstration. They are on the top positions in National Universities, country-wide recognized scientists. NazarK (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think that it is possible, but that is not relevant. The point is that you cannot prove that you have memorized pi unless you can regurgitate it, and it would take years to recite 30 million digits of pi, so unless there is a reliable source that can verify that he spent several years under constant invigilation constantly reciting the digits of pi then it is an unsubstantiated claim, and cannot be included in Wikipedia as a fact. It is reasonable to include it in Andriy Slyusarchuk's aricle as a claim (but not as a verified fact), but not appropriate to include it any form in this article. Anyway, I'm not going to edit-war about it, and hope some other editors are watching, and will add their opionions, so that we can reach a consensus. BabelStone (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the 30 million digits of pi claim is very different and unrelated to the other memory feats of his that you mention. If these other memory feats are verifiable (and the fact that he claims to be able to read people's minds makes me very suspicious) it may suggest that he could memorize pi to a huge number of places, but it is not evidence that he actually has memorized pi to 30 million places. BabelStone (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think any sane person would spend a few years under constant invigilation regurgitating the digits to prove you that he/she has memorized 30 million digits of pi. That's just VERY impractical, not to say absurd. But if multiple people test someone's ability to recall random sequences of digits from the 30 million printout many times, and the claimant is able to do it, then it verifies his claim with a very high probability ratio, I guess. At least, the info may be included into the article with this reservation, as it has been reported by dozens of media so far... Please also refer to the talk page in the article about Mr. Slyusarchuk. I do welcome any debunking proofs and skeptical reviews. Actually, I dare anyone to debunk Mr. Slyusarchuk. You can come and test his abilities yourself. Please do your best. Thanks. NazarK (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Whilst it is very impressive, being able to recite random sequences from the 30 million places of pi is not proof that he has memorized the entire sequence of 30 million places. As such the claim should be removed from this page. BabelStone (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note, he's able to recall not just 'certain' sequences, but ANY sequence of digits randomly chosen by the multiple independent verifiers. That's proof enough, in my opinion.NazarK (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

proof enough in your opinion, but it is still not absolute proof that he has memorized all 30 million digits of pi, and would not be accepted by Guinness World Records, and should not be accepted by Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

acceptance by Guinness World Records is only a matter of time, I believe. Someone just has to organize the official verification and certification by representatives of this organization. As to Wikipedia, abundant reference information has been provided to at least take note of a phenomenon. Even if it was a complete fraud, the very attention of broad media and public resonance would be enough to make an article about it. NazarK (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If you get even a single digit wrong when reciting pi to a certain number of places, then you have failed and cannot claim to have memorized pi to that many digits. But if you don't recite all the digits, but only a random selection of digits, then it is impossible to know whether you might get a digit from one of the unrecited portions wrong if you were to recite it. That is why you must recite the whole thing to claim the record -- if you don't Guiness Records (and any reasonable person) will never accept the claim. It would take several years to recite 30 million digits -- I wonder how long it took Andriy Slyusarchuk to memorize them? In 2009 he claimed 2 million places, yet by June 2009 he claims to have memorized 30 million places -- even with Eidetic memory it's not possible to memorize 28 million digits in a year. BabelStone (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that As Easy As Pi states that:

Medical professor Andriy Sliusarchuk memorized a staggering five thousand one hundred numbers in a mere two minutes flat. Then came record number two, with the prof reciting the value of Pi to its one-millionth decimal place. Having completed the two mind-spinning challenges, the prof received a rapturous round of applause from his students, fellow professors and representatives of the Ukrainian Book of Records.

which implies that he did recite the whole of the first million places of pi, which would have taken at least twelve days if he did not stop to eat or sleep -- funny that the article never mentioned the Herculean duration of the task! Personally I think that it is impossible to memorize 30 million digits and that Slyusarchuk is a fraud. Nevertheless, I don't mind his unbelievable claims being mentioned in the appropriate places on Wikipedia (in the Andriy Slyusarchuk and Eidetic memory articles), but I strongly object to these being presented as "world records" when they are not. BabelStone (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the opening paragraph of the article to be as objective and neutral that I can, mentioning that the record is accepted by the Ukranian Book of Records but not by Guinness World Records. I hope that this is acceptable to you. BabelStone (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's finish this discussion here, please. You're just being stubborn, BabelStone. It's clearly stated both in the case of 1 million and 30 millon demonstrations, that Andriy Slyusarchuk was reciting sequences of numbers randomly chosen by verifiers. It's impractical and not realistic to verify that volume of data by reciting it totally digit by digit. It's not human, if you like. The record had been verified "as is", which means the methodology of verification (allowing a certain minor probability that a claimant would fail by mistake or by weariness if he/she had to recite the total volume) is a part of that particular record. And, BTW, please note that the Guinness World Records is a commercial organization, not a scientific one. And their verification of records is not always objective. It's primarily aimed at 'show and promotion' purposes. A verification by scientific community is much more reliable. I know that the Guinness World Records were reluctant to accept Leonid Stadnyk as the tallest living person on Earth, and they demanded incredibly high payment for the necessary 'additional verification' to certify the record, which Leonid Stadnyk refused to pay, being a poor villager. The general idea is also that Guinness World Records may be bribed by those who like to include their records into it (like by Chinese, who were willing to include Bao Xishun as the tallest living person). Thanks. NazarK (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

There is also the claim that he memorized 5100 digits in two minutes. But the official world record is 405 digits in five minutes. http://web.aanet.com.au/~memorysports/discipline.php?id=num5 Since there is high prize money on those records, it is highly unlikely anyone could beat by such a margin. Memoryexpert de (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazar I am deleting the reference to this person here for the following reason. On his page you have him claiming his skills are eidetic in nature and therefore he does not need to use mnemonics. He has no relevance in this article. Quoth 31 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is your original research. It's not stated anywhere that he does not use mnemonics. He does claim to possess a photographic memory, as one of his means of memorizing. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Also see the definition of mnemonic: "mnemonic... may be visual, kinesthetic or auditory. Mnemonics rely on associations between easy-to-remember constructs which can be related back to the data that is to be remembered." Thant's exactly how Andriy Slyusarchuk describes his memorizing techniques. He says he makes associations between figures, numbers, words and other things. -- Nazar (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't original research; his page and the sources on it claimed that his memory was eidetic. "Slyusarchuk claims his unique memorizing skills are based on the eidetic perception of information." You have since changed that page to mention mnemonics without a citation. I haven't changed this article back but do intend to if it can't be shown that he is a notable part of piphilology. Quoth 31 (talk) 11:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If you use the information from elsewhere that he claims to possess a 'photographic memory' to make a conclusion that he does not use "mnemonics", then it's your original research. There are numerous passages in articles about him where he describes how he makes associations (mostly visual ones, but also others) between numbers, figures and certain ideas. I don't remember exactly if he himself ever used the word 'eidetic' with reference to his skills. It might have been used by the journalists. There are many references to his 'photographic memory', however. Read carefully the articles. I'm not the only one responsible for this material - Wikipedia is a community project. So, feel free to add more referenced info yourself. :) -- Nazar (talk) 11:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazar it is not original research to remove a person from this article because there isn't a cited reference of him talking about mnemonics. The only mention of his method for memorisation was in his page where it said he used eidetic skills. You have since changed this but haven't referenced it. The burden of proof is the other way round, if he doesn't mention the use of these techniques he should not feature. Quoth 31 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In A.S. article I've provided a ref + direct citation mentioning the use of 'mnemonic' techniques. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Nazar one reason why it is usually suggested that references on the English wikipedia be in English is that you have just quoted the word mnemonics in English, from a page that was in Ukranian. We have to trust your translation for this to be verified. Running a translation does not bring up what you have quoted. The point that has been brought up earlier here is that this man's achievements are not recognised anywhere outside of the Ukraine, and there are doubts to his claims from within the country. (some of the interviews that are used for references talk about how he was refused jobs because people suspected him of falsifying his certifcates) therefore providing reliable sources will be very difficult. For him to be put on this page where the focus is on the patterns are used, and the mention of the record holder is brief, i feel is not relevant. Quoth 31 (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Look up the word "мнемотехніка" in the reference. Its direct translation is 'mnemonic technique'. See also ru:Мнемоника, where this word is used in definition. Here's a citation for you from the official reasoning to preserve the article: "While English language sources are preferred, that does not in any way shape or form invalidate non-English sources, indeed we should resist such systemic bias when evaluating an article." If you can provide valid refs for "how he was refused jobs because people suspected him of falsifying his certificates", please include that into the article. This, however, isn't a reason to neglect the notability of A.S. phenomenon in the context of memorization of pi digits. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation, I was working with a rough version. But I still don't see that he's notable on this page. It's been changed now anyway to a version i much prefer, where there is only a fleeting mention of reciting Pi rather than the menmonics used. The reference is to two of the interviews already cited in the article. I am currently drafting possible rewrites to that article and had intended to post some versions on the weekend. Essentially i think there is too much reliance on his own words in a interview, and the ordering of the article needs addressing. But I will move discussion of this to his page from now on. Quoth 31 (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The current version is better indeed. The record holders have been moved to a section at the end of the article, which seems appropriate. He's notable because of his supposed (and widely publicized, also in official sources) ability to remember and recite very large volume of pi digits. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that we have phrased it in a factual way, we should let it return to the main section. Us441(talk)(contribs) 20:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Many of you do not understand about probability and statistics. If something is verified on a large number of randomly-chosen pages, then it is verified to a probability like 0.9999999999999, and for all practical purposes, that is VERIFIED. Do not quibble about this form of verification because doing so just makes you look foolish. If there was some sort of fraud involved, then look for it elsewhere, because that is WHERE IT LIES. Do no quibble about he power of statistical reasoning.98.67.105.234 (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolving Discrepancies Between Pages

The memorization records mentioned at Pi#Memorizing_digits seem very out-of-sync with those given on this page. Have there been any established conclusions on:

• which sources are most trusted?
• whether Pi#Memorizing_digits should even contain detailed records, or just a brief overview along with the link to this page?

I'm a newcomer to this page, so i wanted to ask if any of the longer-term editors had already established a plan before proposing specific edits. Thanks, An Earthshine (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with memory records graph

Please see File talk:PiDigits.svg for some objections to the chart of pi memory records being used here and in the Pi article. - dcljr (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted Andriy Slyusarchuk. It's fake, and links to yellow nonofficial sites

I have deleted Andriy Slyusarchuk. It's fake, and links to yellow nonofficial sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.174.217.109 (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was appropriate, and I have restored the whole section (you didn't delete just Andriy Slyusarchuk). Please explain here what exactly you find lacking with the existing sources, and try to avoid personal (and badly written) judgement calls like "it's fake". Also, what's wrong with the colour yellow?! -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes: "yellow" does not refer to anything derogatory in English now. The writer obviously does not know English well at all. About a hundred years ago, there were derogatory phrases about "yellow journalism", but that phrase has been out of use for a long time. Also, the word "nonofficial" is spelled just like this, and with no blanks or hyphens.98.67.105.234 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

100,000 memorizing record

the 100,000 memorizing record is only a claim, hadn't been verified. Should be stated in the article. Gil_mo (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Khaime Garcia

The article on Khaime Garcia is weakly sourced, and doesn't indicate notability per WP:BIO. Any objections to merging it here at the "Memorization record holders" section? Anyone know a more reliable way to WP:Verify the asserted record? Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. It's been speedy deleted on notability grounds. Altered Walter (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Piphilology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110716105000/http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20061004-00000402-yom-soci to http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20061004-00000402-yom-soci

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

dreams number us like pi

Rhymes with the digits of pi in what language? It doesn't rhyme (near or perfect) in English.

Dreams -- three. Okay. It's near rhyme. Number -- one. Not even if you pronounce it as "wun" instead of "won"--or as the pronunciation I like the most: "one"--would I give you assonance for that.

And then there's

us -- four

I don't know. Am I missing something or is someone mistaken about the way this poem functions? Smartstocks (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)