What is a repeater?

News: Welcome to the Canadian Paper Money Forum.

Common Q:
Is this a repeater?
a) 2569256

Or is this?
b) 2562562

I think b.
One repeater means that there is 2 more repeaters (to finish the set)
ie:
2562562 5625625 6256256 (and then the cycle continues, in a repeating fashion, after every third number).

Whereas:
2569256 2569256 2569256 -- see there is no repeating function, other than after the seventh number.

Thoughts?
Anyway, this is my conclusion from Gilles' lists.
Huds

According to what I had learnt from a friend collector, you're right about the repeater:  the rule is:  the 1st, 4th and last digits must be the same, so you cannot have a so-called "four digits" repeater, you can only have three-, two- and of course one-digit repeater (solid).  In some case, you can have a number which is a repeater and radar:  e.g.:  1221221, but not all the 2-digits repeaters are radars:  1121121 is not a radar.

Satistically, the repeaters are rarer than the radars:  in a 10 million run, you can have only 1 000 repeaters (whereas there is 10 000 radars, 630 of those are 2-digits radars).  In others words, the repeaters are almost as rare that 2-digits radars.  But in this number, so some notes are accounted twice:  you just have to think to the 9 "solids"...I didn't made all the maths, to calculate the total number of each category, but it's not very difficult to do...

copperpete, why not any "four digits" or period=4 repeaters? Most the notes I see sold as "repeaters" are of this type (type (a) in hundsons original post). Of course the period=3 or =2 repeaters would be more desirable I suppose since they are quite a bit rarer (1/10,000 and 1/100,000 as opposed ot 1 in 1,000). And of course the period=4 repeaters could be of the 2 digit (1000100), 3 digit(2100210) and 4 digit(3210321) variety in the traditional meaning of digit as pertains to radar notes. Just as the period=3 could be a 2-digit (1101101) or a 3-digit (2102102) and of course all the period=2 repeaters would be radars as well (1010101). So with so many potential varieties and sub-varieties, I guess it's all about what us collectors want to collect.

1218121 is a repeater with period of 1 (or cycle of 1, or modulo 1)
That is, if you record the serial number 1 time, there are 1 repetitions.
ONLY 1, consisting of 7 digits.
Thus, when in cycle 1
1248124 needs no other serial number to complete it`s repeater set.


Compare:
1281281, which is a repeater with a period/cycle of 3.
1281281 2812812 8128128 are the three serial numbers needed for a complete set of repeaters on a cycle of 3.


Similarily, 2626262 is a repeater of cycle 2.
It`s matching note would be
6262626, giving:
2626262 6262626
--A perfect pair of repeating notes.

Contrast a cycle 6:
1234581 2345812 3458123 4581234 5812345 8123458
You would need these 6 notes to complete the set of repeaters.

Any single note on its own, unless specified under some other heading (radar-rotator) is really nothing then.
1241241 is really only 1/3 of a repeating set.

Now that my brain is spinning, please let me know what you think.
Huds

Hudson, like I said at CNA, from my stand point, a repeater note for a 7-digit serial number is ABCZABC, as oppose to ABCABCZ.  I guess this mentality carries over from radars, rotators and ascending/descending ladders which all pivot/flip/reverse/rotate around 4th digit of the serial number.  

You bring up some good points in terms of cycles and sets, never thought about it that way.  I guess with 7-digit serial numbers, the definition (or interpretation) of repeaters won't be as clear cut as 8-digit based US currency of ABCDABCD or ABABABAB.

I agree with CJ, ABCZABC would be a 7 digit serial number considered as a repeater note. Where Z is an independent number from the ABC digits.

Examples:

6751675, 6752675 - In each repeater note the middle number is not involved in the repeating function of the serial number.

 

Hey guys thanks for the input.
The whole reason I ever brought this up is because Gilles lists his repeaters only as notes like this:
ABCABCA
and not:
ABCZABC

Gilles has more knowledge about this stuff than I ever could imagine  , thus I take his definition like fact.
On his lists, his def'n puts repeaters at 1 / 10000 notes, whereas the ABCZABC puts them at 1/1000 notes.
The $5 above, is a 1/1000 note. It only repeats using the given serial number.  By that case, ANY random serial number is a repeater, meaning if you were to put the number beside itself 2 times, to create a 14 digit string, there would only be two cycles of repitition.
Take number:
ASDFGHJ (totally random)
ASDFGHJ ASDFGHJ  -- 14 digits side by side, and there is only two cycles.  Just like
5679567 5679567 -- 14 digits again and two cycles.

So by this logic, any note with seven digits is at MINIMUM a repeater.  And this is my guess why Gilles doesn't use this definition.

To note- I guess I do notice now:
5679567 9567956 7956795 6795679 would be needed to complete a set of repeaters for this particular serial number pattern.  The fact that there are an odd number of digits in our notes vs US means that any repeater set will have a minimum of two notes (6262626 2626262) - except for solid radars of course)

However, the repeaters in Gilles lists are ones that cycle on 3s.  And of course they are not the only ones (becuase we all know solid radars are repaters as well).  The inconsistency that I see is calling a ABCZABC note a repeater, when like I said, it only repeats 1 time for every time you pair the number with itself.  Write it down 3 times, and find 3 repetitions.
By that very same logic, our hypothetical note with number ASDFGHJ is also then a repeater.   This of course contradics what a repeater is in our definition, otherwisde, like I said, all serial numbers are at minimum a "repeater" rendering them nothing more than face value.  (I am thinking modular math here with the cycles)

I guess the main thing is that is 5679567 is a repeater, then so is 1254869.  To me, this plainly illustrates that the logic to defining ABCZABC as a special note, is flawed or inconsistent.
Hudson

I guess it is estheticaly pleasing.  
Got me there.

Okay okay -
I am sometimes one for beating a dead horse. And this may be another example...

I do agree that a repeater such as ABCZABC is nice and appealing, and does in fact repeat, along either side of the central digit.

I would like to know then if we could re-name the notes that are of this form
ABCABCA, such as:
4584584
to the name "cyclical" notes.  The ABCABCA note would obviously be cyclical to the order of three.  We here on Earth could call it a cycle-3 note.
And there would be multiple notes required for there to be a full set of cycle notes.
In the case mentioned here:
4584584 5845845 8458458 would be the three serial numbers you would need from three different notes to complete the cycle-3 set.  

This is more closely a descriptor to what the ABCABCA notes actuallly do, as opposed to repeating (such as ABCZABC)

As far as rarity, a cycle note is 1 in 10000, but to find the set of x-many cycle notes to complete a full cycle, that would be impossible (nearly, and yes I am going to try).

I would like to know what anyone thinks about this ANYBODY- and this way, we could eliminate to double use of the word repeater.


Later!
Huds

The radar repeater overlap- people already always mention that for the most part...

Yes, an ABCZABC repeater is 1/1000 just like a radar.  Therefore, ther is ENOUGH of them around to stir up some kind of sub market, just like radars are.  The crossover I believe wouldn't really be much of an issue.

The cyclical notes though, would as a set be so incredibally scarce, they would be like attaining a million number set.   AND possibly even MORE difficult, because who the heck actually saves these randome number "cyclical" notes? Not very many people.  Plus, the average Joe may be inclined to pull out a solid digit radar from change, but would never even think to pull a "cycle-3" note out.

But thanks for your thoughts- backing me up lol.  There should be a difference in name.

I finally had enough time to read this post and it is quite interesting.  The rarity of abcabca is definately warrant special consideration.  if there are only 1 per10000 notes. That does make it rare.  May be we will see it in the next book due to the scarity of the sequeces.

cheers

polarbear

How much do repeaters go for???  :-?

I have a couple repeater $5s, and almost feel guilty asking $10 for them.  
But, they were specially pulled (just like radars) and consume finacial resources to hold.  
Secondly, if you had the choice between two notes you could buy to put into your set:
HOY 8153647 or
HOY 5629562
I would bet people would be drawn to the second note.

Kind of like a note from the "frusterating bill" thread, where you get things like this:
9949999, or 4567892, or 4556553.  SO close.  Of course, when it comes to filling in a regular spot, anice number ispreferried if numbers are considered at all from what I have seen.
Huds

I like the idea,

Why not call it a "3-Digit Cycle Note"?

I have been selling my Repeaters (ABCZABC) for 60% - 75% of Radar Values. There is a market and has been growing for them. You can get sequential sets and some really interesting combinations like Reversal Serials and stuff.

But I agree that ABCABCA Should have a different definition as they are two totally different concepts. And does deserve a larger premium in a set. It would take a long time to build a 3 X Set of  3-Digit Cycle Notes.   But as individual notes they should have the same premium as a Repeater Note as there is nothing EXTRA special over a ABCZABC Note.

I think this should be defined and expanded on for the 20th Edition. People know about Repeaters but to put a value on it is crutial. The General Public needs to be exposed to these newer Serial Number concepts. Such as the Rotator Notes, this has been a great sucess and we are starting to see these notes pop up on the market...  8-)

I think we need some feedback from more Senior members and see what the General feeling towards these concepts is?