Questions about Horcruxes

Personally, I think that it's probably 1/64; unless the wizard has complete control over what fraction of his soul he puts into the horcrux. If (s)he does, then it's probably 1/7, unless he put more in the diary, since that was meant as a weapon.

I personally think it isn't either 1/7 or 1/64. What reason do we have to believe that it is any particular size? What does size or quantity even mean in relation to a soul? I think it's just a non-descript part, just "some" soul.

Importantly, the "self" resides wholely in the primary soul piece, according to Dumbledore. To me, that implies that there's no sense of evenly dividing the soul, because then it would seem likely that no particular 1/7 or 1/64 of the soul would hold the "self," ya know?

So basically I think there's reason to believe that math doesn't really apply to the soul.

Could Dumbledore have made an Horcrux because he had killed a person?
(sorry don't remember the name) Because the killing had been for the general good would it constitute as an act of evil required to make an horcrux.
Also why can't other death eaters who have killed make horcrux?
Can werewolves like Greyback make a horcrux?
Is Harry snape's horcrux? This would explain Dumbledore's trust in Snape,snape hating to see his soul inside a person who looks like James, Harry seeing Snape's childhood escapade during occlumency and the fact that horcruxes inside living beings are not effective and accounts for Harry's independant character.

Personally I doubt so many people in wizarding world could have made horcruxes, it's described as an very special act of evil, neither known nor made by many wizards before.

However, you might also be interested in
Do any Death Eaters know about the Horcruxes? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=97083&highlight=horcruxes) and
So could Snape now have his own Horcrux? (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=92961&highlight=horcrux)

I was wondering, what if two Witches/Wizards made one another horcuxes? Like, say, Sam and Joe make two horcruxes, Sam is Joe's Horcrux, and Joe is Sam's Horcrux. Would they be invincible?

Dumbledore said it would be risky to make a living thing into a horcrux-- little to no control over an object that can think and act for itself. Also, bodies are fragile. It would be pretty easy to destroy a living horcrux.

Okay, but since Sam is Joe's Horcrux, if you tried to kill Joe, that would be prevented by his Horcrux.

Yes, he would turn into Vapourmort

Yes, he would turn into Vapourmort

In which case, Sam is probably no longer protected by the JoeHorcrux, and Sam could be killed. This might even be true if Joe gets a new body before anyone tries to kill Sam. It doesn't appear to be the case that a Horcrux can be revived or fixed. Then with Sam dead, Sam wouldn't be around anymore to protect Joe.

So I don't think they'd be "invincible," but I do think it'd be a lot harder to kill them.

Ah...


This is what happens when you don't think things through. Remember that one, kids. ;)

Dumbledore said it would be risky to make a living thing into a horcrux-- little to no control over an object that can think and act for itself. Also, bodies are fragile. It would be pretty easy to destroy a living horcrux.

Like, say, Nagini?

Everyone seems to assume that each horcrux has one seventh of voldemorts soul in it but that is just not true. In the first horcrux that voldemort made, half of a soul stayed in his body and a half went out. So in the next horcrux the 1/2 soul would be split up into 2 1/4 souls. And for the next horcrux the 1/4 soul would be split up into 2 1/8 souls and so on and so on.

Could this mean that some horcruxes are more important than others?

Anyone have any opinions on this?

I have seen this idea discussed on other threads, but personally I think that this is just more proof of JKR's lack of math skills. While she is a wonderful author, she does have problems when it comes to biology (the genetics of being a wizard) and with math (number of students in Hogwarts, House Points). She probably thought, when someone keeps dividing his or her soul, it would eventually end up in seven pieces; however, those who know a little more about math would be able to tell you that, when something keeps getting divided in half, it will not end up in equal parts, but instead smaller and smaller fractions.

So yes, you are probably correct with your math, but for the sake of the story, I would stick with the idea that there are seven equal pieces of Voldemort's soul.

hmm that was not the answer I was hoping for lol

is there canon or a interview of hers where she explicitly says "seven equal pieces"

From memory, I thought it was described as splitting off a part of your soul, not necessarily half.
Does it say anywhere that each part is equal to the others?

Probably the murders that meant a crucuial change in voldemort's life.

Speaking of. Do you think that Lily and James's muder counted for any of the horcruxes??

Speaking of. Do you think that Lily and James's muder counted for any of the horcruxes??

Unless you believe that Harry is a Horcrux (a theory I do not personally subscribe to), Voldemort would not have had the time to make a Horcrux out of Lily or James's death before he killed Harry. There also would have been no way to hid the Horcrux or anything. Also Dumbledore mentions that Voldemort was saving the last Horcrux for Harry so it does not seem likely that he would use Lily or James for a Horcrux.

From memory, I thought it was described as splitting off a part of your soul, not necessarily half.
Does it say anywhere that each part is equal to the others?
No, it doesn't, and if it was split into seven equal pieces, then it's going to cause problems for those people who only make one horcrux.

Maybe you can decide the size of the parts in advance.

From memory, I thought it was described as splitting off a part of your soul, not necessarily half.
Does it say anywhere that each part is equal to the others?

I agree. Dumbledore says at one point that "a seventh" (note, this is not the same as saying "1/7" because "1/7" is clearly mathematical while "a seventh" could be more colloquial and imprecise) of Voldemort's soul was in the diary or something like that. So Dumbledore does say something about sevenths, but it's in a context where it seems like he just means one of the 7 pieces.

No one ever says that the soul is torn into two equal pieces. There are several references to a "bit" or a "part" of soul being in an object. My interpretation is that it's something like having a huge cake (imagine a wedding cake for 200 people or something) and taking 6 little pieces out (for the couple and their parents ;) ). I don't think JKR even cares about the math of it, and I don't see how the math would matter. What matters is that part of the soul is in the Horcrux object, and any part of the soul in an object will keep Voldemort alive. The main soul piece is in Voldemort's body, and that is the self, so even if it's mathematically a small piece of the soul "stuff," it's the most important piece.

I was thinking, it seems perfectly possible for someone to put a horcrux in someone else, providing a dementor has sucked out their soul. Do you think Voldemort may have done this, or is planning to?

Orginally Posted by InsaneKira:
I was thinking, it seems perfectly possible for someone to put a horcrux in someone else, providing a dementor has sucked out their soul. Do you think Voldemort may have done this, or is planning to?

I doubt that Voldemort would trust someone enough to put part of his soul inside of them even after their soul has been sucked out. On theory I think it could work though.

Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort knows the Diary has been destroyed. Voldemort is again left with only 6 soul pieces. Dumbledore also tells Harry that Voldemort wants his soul in 7 pieces before he faces Harry again. Ergo, there must be a Horcrux that replaces the Diary.

If there is a replacement horcurx, what is it and who did he kill to make it?

Dumbledore told Harry that Voldemort used significant killings to make horcruxes and that Voldemort rarely does the killing himself. However, Voldemort does kill an important person himself in the beginning of Book 6.... Amelia Bones. She was a very powerful witch who was slated to be the next Minister of Magic.

As to what the replacement horcrux may be, that is difficult to say. It is possible that instead of something of Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor, Harry may have to find something of Ravenclaw's and Gryffindor's. I would find it fitting if the horcrux was something of Harry's that Voldemort took during one of their fights - maybe the smashed prophecy globe was "Reparo"-ed and instead of containing the prophecy it now contains Voldemorts soul. Or perhaps he made Snape bring him the Triwizard Cup - that would also be fitting since that is how he got his body back.

I know that the existance of an extra horcrux would be a lot for Harry to both find out about and deal with on top of all the others, but he might get some inside information on it - from Snape, Wormtail, Kreature - who knows, maybe even Draco. Maybe Harry and Draco would be able to communicate quite easily by means of Dobby (who used to work for the Malfoys).

I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I was thinking about horcuxes and the way they work and it seems awfully confusing. My question though is, Had Tom Riddles diary been successful, would there have then been 2 voldemorts? 17 year old riddle, and vapormort?

I think there is a thread already discussing this, but I don't have the link...

That's a good question. I was thinking maybe Vapormort would have join TR, and then he would have had a body again, you know what I mean? Like Vapormort entering TR, and kind of possessing him, but with consent? I know, it's confusing, but what I think.

I was thinking that could be a possibilty, and why didn't vapormort ever utilize any of his horcruxes? As far as I know he didn't use one when he returned at the grave yard. Someone explained that a a horcrux is basically just an anchor that keeps him tied the the mortal existence, id thats the case though how did the diary manifest itself without the presence of the dark lord?

What would happen if a horcrux was placed inside of a phoenix? Would it be reborn with the phoenix each time the phoenix dies?

We have all heard that Voldemort made horcruxes, in which he has been storing pieces of his soul in a bid for immortality. It’s been a bit confusing to me. Murder tears a soul, yet murder itself does not create a horcrux. And somehow tearing one’s soul deliberately is a thing which is, by its very character, unnatural and heinous, and which implies a condition of the meanest existence. Slughorn assures us through his warning to Tom Riddle that few wizards indeed would desire such an existence. We know that Riddle/Voldemort went ahead and made several horcuxes, did in fact survive the vaporization his body because of that, and spent a number of years without a proper body. But we are never told, exactly, just how Voldemort made his horcruxes, why it is even more evil than other nasty spells, and – most importantly – why it didn’t work when he tried to kill Harry Potter as a baby.

Over at Red-Hen, I found a fabulous theory, one which I would like to discuss here. Actually, Red-Hen has a rather complex theory and analysis, which can be examined at his site (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html). Some of it is a bit far-fetched, but he does seem to have figured out the way of making a horcrux. It comes down to understanding the connection to these specific qualities:


[] Voldemort has no real use for emotions, he seems to regard them as useless. Especially emotions connected to love;

[] We are told by Nearly-Headless Nick in OOtP that ghosts are souls which do not pass through the Veil in the Department of Mysteries, meaning that upon death souls are separated from the body;

[] Dementors can suck souls from bodies, demonstrating that a soul can be removed from a body separate from other activity, since a Dementor’s victim is alive yet soulless;

[] Voldemort can possess people. This ability goes back to his childhood (remember Billy Stubb’s rabbit, and the two children in the cave?), and while it is exceedingly rare, it also is a quality which Voldemort chooses not to call attention to;

[] Dumbledore argues, with sound logic, that Voldemort intended to make a horcux with baby Harry’s death. It is significant that the Priori Incantantem did not reveal a wand spell connected with the attempt to kill Harry, meaning that Voldemort was doing something else when he tried to kill baby Harry;

[] We see from scenes in GoF and OotP that Harry can see and experience Voldemort’s thoughts and mind, sometimes with little pain. Voldemort, on the other hand, suffers excruciating pain if he tries to possess Harry or make too close contact with him (why?);

[] Something blew up the Potter’s House in Godric’s Hollow. While a number of theories have been presented, the simplest explanation is that the damage occurred as the result of Voldemort’s rebounded curse.

Do you see it yet? If not, think it through. Why are the three “Unforgiveable” curses so designated? I mean, the Imperius Curse seems awfully mild for the punishment, hmm? What they have in common, the Crucio, the Imperius, and the Avada Kedavra, is that they compel the victim to do something against their will. Indeed, these curses were created to compel the victim, to serve, suffer, or die at the will of the caster. What if those curses were created to mimic the effects of an ability which most wizards never have? The ability to possess another person?

Next, just how do you tear off a piece of soul? Isn’t that the same thing as putting your soul in more than one place? And isn’t that how possession works? What happens if you possess a person, then kill that person while you possess them? Yep, that’s real evil, controlling a person so that they are helpless beyond any doubt, then killing them for the specific purpose of tearing a bit of your own soul apart. That appears to describe exactly how Voldemort does it. It’s a little tricky, takes planning and an absolutely merciless and evil wizard. And you lock away a bit of your soul in some physical object, to anchor the rest so that if your body gets destroyed, as happened to Voldemort at Godric’s Hollow, the loose bit does not tend to drift Veil-wards, but remains sort of “at large” until some resolution is found. By the way, it also dehumanizes a person, because since they possessing the person they wish to murder, a wizard making a horcrux would experience death everytime they make a horcrux. That would explain why few wizards, even if they could do so, are keen to make a lot of horcruxes.

What do you think?

I just had a completely random though and wanted some other veiws on the matter. If a wizard decided to turn a mirror into a horcrux would it instead ricoche back and turn themselves into a horcrux, and would this work with other things like Avada Kavara?

Come on people help me with some answers or questions.

I guess it might depend on what kind of mirror it was. I'm not a all sure what would happen with a regular mirror. But I do wonder what would happen with the Mirror of Erised. Maybe the person who put their horcrux into the mirror would only see the horcrux when they looked into it and possibly if a person was searching for a horcrux to destroy might be able to see the horcrux too, but if a regular person was looking into it they would only see their heart's desire...probably not a horcrux. I can think of more situations if a horcrux was hidden in the Mirror of Erised, but it might get confusing (for me).

This doesn't seem to really fit in with exactly what you guys are talking about at the moment, but this is where I was told to post this. Sorry, I'm new to the site and still don't really understand things.

How do you make a Horcrux? None of us readers really no for sure. We know that it involves the creator killing someone, tearing their soul from this death, and then storing that fragment of soul in an object of choice. But how is this done? Well, I don't think that we'll ever be able to figure this out on our own, and we'll just have to wait until Book 7 to find out for sure. But...I do have this theory...

What is 'death'? Websters defines it as the act or state of dying. So, how can you use someone else's death to preserve a piece of your own soul? Well, I think that JKR has decided to take a different viewpoint on death.

Thestrals are creatures that can only be viewed by people "who have seen death." Luna can see them: she saw her mum die. Neville can see them: he saw his grandfather die. Harry can see them: he saw Cedric die. But wait a minute....Read that scene again, and did he really?

A blast of green light blazed through Harry's eyelids, and he heard something heavy fall to the ground beside him; the pain in his scar reached such a pitch that he retched, and then it diminished; terrified of what he was about to see, he opened his stinging eyes. Cedric was lying spread eagled on the ground beside him. He was dead.

Reading that, it shows that technically, Harry never really did see Cedric die, his eyes were closed when it happened. So he shouldn't have been able to view the Thestrals in book 5...Unless of course there was something else that would count as viewing death.

And there was: the Echoes that emerged from Voldemort's wand. Harry refers to these manifestations as 'ghosts' but Dumbledore corrects him by saying that they are 'echoes' or 'shadows'. They are images of the people that Voldemort has killed, or, they are images of these people in their death. I think that by viewing these echoes, Harry was able to later see the Thestrals, because he did not see Cedric actually die, but did see these other deaths appear.

You're probably wondering now what this has to do with the Horcruxes, or the new title. Well, if these 'echos' are indeed counted as deaths, then these could be what are used in the creation of a Horcrux. Now, how exactly do you use them? You'll need to ask JKR, because only she knows. And by using these echoes, it also shows why you do not need the intended item present at the death. The deaths are instead stored within your own wand.

Now for the connection to the title. Deathly Hallows. The 'deathly' part is easy enough to understand, and does not need any further explanation. But Hallows...If you look the word up in the dictionary, it is described as a singular verb, and not as the plural noun in which it is being used. Therefore: Hallows does not have the same meaning as what dear old Websters or dictionary.com are giving us. Its another thing that Jo has decided to twist to her own likings.

Now, starting with what Dumbledore had said, the images/deaths are echoes or shadows. These can be defined as a ghost. A ghost, as a spirit.

"All Hallows Eve" is considered in legends to be the day when the 'spirits' are able to appear on this earth. In this tale, Hallows generally refers to Saints, but can also refer to the spirits themselves. So 'hallows' means 'spirits', for the sake of this theory. And following back the train of definitions previously created, hallows, therefore, can also mean the echoes.

Deathly Hallows: what Voldemort has used in the creation of his Horcruxes.

Each time we see Harry and Dumbledore talking about Horcruxes, it seems that Voldemort's soul has been ripped into 7 parts an each Horcrux hides 1/7 of the original soul.

I've been wondering - how can this be? Unless the Horcrux-spell includes an indication how big a part of the soul one intends to extract (and it didn't seem that it does), dividing the soul should have been to half each time. This is also what Slughorn indicates when he is describing the procedure - ripping or dividing the soul in half.

If this is true, then the part of soul that Voldemort has, should be significantly smaller than the other ones. And the first Horcrux (the diary or the ring) should have included the biggest part of soul. Making some calculations, this would result in a very tiny percentage of the original soul (1,56% if I'm not mistaken, though math is not my strongest) and might also explain how Voldemort can be so inhuman.

Of course this is just a theory and I hardly think JKR would bother with this kind of reasoning, but the original version, that of ripping only one seventh (14,3%) off one's soul with a Horcrux spell, doesn't really seem to make sense either.

for me, this question is awesome... kudos...
however, I believe that it doesn't matter how big it was... or how tiny...
as long as the soul is living and unscathed, the soul can still be used to bring back to life the horcrux owner no matter how big the soul portion is...

<winks>

Okay, this is a really wild theory. It has a bit to do with Harry-is-a-Horcrux, but I'm not trying to start any arguments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, (I haven't read HBP in awhile,) but I don't think it says anywhere that the ring Horcrux got its crack when Dumbledore took the soul out of it. What if it got the crack when LV put his soul in it?
What if Harry's scar has something to do with that crack?
I know that it didn't say that the diary had a crack or anything in it, but maybe it had a rip in it somewhere or something.
I also find it kind of odd that all it took to destroy the diary was a stab from a Basilisk fang when Dumbledore almost died from the ring Horcrux. I'm not saying that the diary isn't a Horcrux or anything, but I just think it's kind of weird.
What if Harry meets Nagini to kill her or rid her of her Horcrux or whatever, and sees that she has a little lightning bolt scar on her forehead? (:lol:)
I realise that it's probably just a coincidence. I don't even really believe that theory, but I just thought I'd throw it out there :).

Another thing about Horcruxes: In OOtP right after Harry has the dream where he's Nagini (p 470 of the U.S. hardcover) Dumbledore does that weird thing with the silver instrument. The smokey snake comes out and he says "Naturally, naturally, but in essence divided?" and the snake splits in half. The DD looks "grimly satisfied."
I wonder if the "essence divided" had to do with LV's divided soul...

Okay, this is a really wild theory. It has a bit to do with Harry-is-a-Horcrux, but I'm not trying to start any arguments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, (I haven't read HBP in awhile,) but I don't think it says anywhere that the ring Horcrux got its crack when Dumbledore took the soul out of it. What if it got the crack when LV put his soul in it?
What if Harry's scar has something to do with that crack?
I know that it didn't say that the diary had a crack or anything in it, but maybe it had a rip in it somewhere or something.

I find it funny that you mention that because about a week and a half ago Ben and Emerson were doing a booksigning at a nearby Borders and I went, and Emerson (I think) said this exact same thing. I sat there and was like hmm...could be true. I actually was totally against the Harry is a Horcrux thing until I heard Emerson talk about it. Pretty interesting stuff.

I saw them at Borders too! I wasn't really sure what to think about Harry-is-a-Horcrux until I heard them talk about it. Now I think it makes sense.
I don't think they talked about the crack in the ring when they went to my Borders though.

I saw them at Borders too! I wasn't really sure what to think about Harry-is-a-Horcrux until I heard them talk about it. Now I think it makes sense.
I don't think they talked about the crack in the ring when they went to my Borders though.

They did mention it when I was there. I find it really interesting...I should go look up that passage to see exactly what it says, but I'm feeling a bit lazy at the moment.

Those who are interested will find Assuming Harry or his scar is a Hocrux v2 (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=94457) to be the proper place to discuss the issue, though it isn't a thread for debating is/isn't. :)

I'm not sure if this should go in divination studies but it doesn't really relate to DH so yea.

I was wondering if you can die of old age even when you have a horcrux. I know your soul will still be trapped, but would you body eventually wear out? So if somebody's body died, and you went and found their horcrux(es) and destroyed it, would the bit of soul that was left just drift away and that person would be truly dead? hm. This also has implications on the flip side; would it not be easier to kill someone *coughvoldycough* and then go and destroy their horcruxes? yea I dunno. Tell me what you think.

A Horcrux is said to prevent death, but I think it really gives a person a second chance to live.

When Harry defeated Voldemort when he was only a baby, Voldemort's body was destroyed, along with his life. If his soul is still safe, then he can still aquire a body.

If this goes into the all questions about horcruxes v something, please move it there, I just thought it deserved a thread of it's own. I tried doing a search, but I couldn't find anything.

We have all heard that Voldemort made horcruxes, in which he has been storing pieces of his soul in a bid for immortality. It’s been a bit confusing to me. Murder tears a soul, yet murder itself does not create a horcrux. And somehow tearing one’s soul deliberately is a thing which is, by its very character, unnatural and heinous, and which implies a condition of the meanest existence. Slughorn assures us through his warning to Tom Riddle that few wizards indeed would desire such an existence. We know that Riddle/Voldemort went ahead and made several horcuxes, did in fact survive the vaporization his body because of that, and spent a number of years without a proper body. But we are never told, exactly, just how Voldemort made his horcruxes, why it is even more evil than other nasty spells, and – most importantly – why it didn’t work when he tried to kill Harry Potter as a baby.

Over at Red-Hen, I found a fabulous theory, one which I would like to discuss here. Actually, Red-Hen has a rather complex theory and analysis, which can be examined at his site (http://www.redhen-publications.com/Changeling.html). Some of it is a bit far-fetched, but he does seem to have figured out the way of making a horcrux. It comes down to understanding the connection to these specific qualities:


[] Voldemort has no real use for emotions, he seems to regard them as useless. Especially emotions connected to love;

[] We are told by Nearly-Headless Nick in OOtP that ghosts are souls which do not pass through the Veil in the Department of Mysteries, meaning that upon death souls are separated from the body;

[] Dementors can suck souls from bodies, demonstrating that a soul can be removed from a body separate from other activity, since a Dementor’s victim is alive yet soulless;

[] Voldemort can possess people. This ability goes back to his childhood (remember Billy Stubb’s rabbit, and the two children in the cave?), and while it is exceedingly rare, it also is a quality which Voldemort chooses not to call attention to;

[] Dumbledore argues, with sound logic, that Voldemort intended to make a horcux with baby Harry’s death. It is significant that the Priori Incantantem did not reveal a wand spell connected with the attempt to kill Harry, meaning that Voldemort was doing something else when he tried to kill baby Harry;

[] We see from scenes in GoF and OotP that Harry can see and experience Voldemort’s thoughts and mind, sometimes with little pain. Voldemort, on the other hand, suffers excruciating pain if he tries to possess Harry or make too close contact with him (why?);

[] Something blew up the Potter’s House in Godric’s Hollow. While a number of theories have been presented, the simplest explanation is that the damage occurred as the result of Voldemort’s rebounded curse.

Do you see it yet? If not, think it through. Why are the three “Unforgiveable” curses so designated? I mean, the Imperius Curse seems awfully mild for the punishment, hmm? What they have in common, the Crucio, the Imperius, and the Avada Kedavra, is that they compel the victim to do something against their will. Indeed, these curses were created to compel the victim, to serve, suffer, or die at the will of the caster. What if those curses were created to mimic the effects of an ability which most wizards never have? The ability to possess another person?

Next, just how do you tear off a piece of soul? Isn’t that the same thing as putting your soul in more than one place? And isn’t that how possession works? What happens if you possess a person, then kill that person while you possess them? Yep, that’s real evil, controlling a person so that they are helpless beyond any doubt, then killing them for the specific purpose of tearing a bit of your own soul apart. That appears to describe exactly how Voldemort does it. It’s a little tricky, takes planning and an absolutely merciless and evil wizard. And you lock away a bit of your soul in some physical object, to anchor the rest so that if your body gets destroyed, as happened to Voldemort at Godric’s Hollow, the loose bit does not tend to drift Veil-wards, but remains sort of “at large” until some resolution is found. By the way, it also dehumanizes a person, because since they possessing the person they wish to murder, a wizard making a horcrux would experience death everytime they make a horcrux. That would explain why few wizards, even if they could do so, are keen to make a lot of horcruxes.

What do you think?

Wow, very impressive. I think you've caught onto something in that the key to ripping apart one's soul is to posses something then kill it. Interesting.

Does anyone notice that some Horcrux must be contain more soul than the others. IF the point of a Horcrux is to split your soul in two parts, then the first time he made a horcrux, 1/2 was in his body and 1/2 was in the horcrux. This means that the second time he made one, he split his soul in half again. Therefore the first horcrux is 1/2 of a soul, the second horcrux is 1/4, third is 1/8, fourth is 1/16, fifth is 1/32, and the six is 1/64. That means that he is only has 1/64 of a soul in his body right now. This doesnt really mean too much, just thought it was interesting.

hhmm. he spilts his soul in seven pieces, but i thought it would be like the first time it split, that first half was in his body, the other int he horcrux. Then when it spilt again, the part in his body split not the one in the horcrux. So each part of the soul in the horcruxes basically will get smaller then. i don't think that the piece of soul that is already a horcrux will split too, just the part thatis still inside him, otherwise he could have made..uummm lots of horcruxes then. lol

hhmm. he spilts his soul in seven pieces, but i thought it would be like the first time it split, that first half was in his body, the other int he horcrux. Then when it spilt again, the part in his body split not the one in the horcrux. So each part of the soul in the horcruxes basically will get smaller then. i don't think that the piece of soul that is already a horcrux will split too, just the part thatis still inside him, otherwise he could have made..uummm lots of horcruxes then. lol

Here's what the idea is: take a pie. Cut it in half. One half is the first Horcrux, the other is still in Voldemort. That second half is then split into two parts to create the second Horcrux...meaning the part in the second Horcrux would only be 1/4 and the part left in Voldy would only be 1/4 of the original soul, whereas the first Horcrux would have 1/2 of the original soul.

I don't think he (or she?) is suggesting that the pieces already in the Horcruxes split. It's just that after the first Horcrux, there is less of a soul left to split (half of a pie as opposed to a whole pie), and thus the pieces of soul placed in subsequent Horcruxes must be smaller.

Anyway, I had thought about this, but it seems kind of odd. Can a soul really be split the way you would a pie? Or is it more like tearing off pieces randomly, like if you were ripping a shirt apart and, obviously, couldn't make it tear neatly into little equal sections?

Nice logic. I can see this being able to work, this is all very true but the first horcrux is definitly biggest. Maybe by defeating the diary voldemort became the weakest there then if another was distroyed in its place

adjhunte posted:
Does anyone notice that some Horcrux must be contain more soul than the others. IF the point of a Horcrux is to split your soul in two parts, then the first time he made a horcrux, 1/2 was in his body and 1/2 was in the horcrux. This means that the second time he made one, he split his soul in half again. Therefore the first horcrux is 1/2 of a soul, the second horcrux is 1/4, third is 1/8, fourth is 1/16, fifth is 1/32, and the six is 1/64. That means that he is only has 1/64 of a soul in his body right now. This doesnt really mean too much, just thought it was interesting.
Yeah this bothered me too. I suppose the way it works that as, for each Horcrux you make, the less soul each one contains.
So, when he Horcruxed the diary it contained half of his soul and he contained half of his soul; when he Horcruxed the locket it contained one third of his soul, he contained one third of his soul, and the diary contained one third of his soul; when he Horcruxed the ring it contained one fourth of his soul, as did the locket, the diary,and himself, and so on and so forth for the rest of the Horcruxes.
Who'd have though we'd ever have a reason to apply fractions to Harry Potter?

Originally posted by rhhgrt
Who'd have though we'd ever have a reason to apply fractions to Harry Potter?
Given JKR's self-confessed aversion to mathematics, I doubt she thought it!

I'd be willing to bet that JKR didn't consider the whole 'halving the soul each time a Horcrux is created' issue when she planned the story. Indeed, I don't believe there is any mention of murder causing the soul to be ripped into two equal pieces in the books. Slughorn simply tells the young Voldemort that 'Killing rips the soul apart' and refers to 'part' of the soul being stored outside the body.