Modern numerology reduces a hundred and four to five and reads it as a number of change and freedom. This reductive reading is the whole of its symbolic account. A hundred and four is best described as an integer without tradition.
Nicomachus's own arithmetic sorted whole numbers into deficient, perfect and abundant by comparing them with the sum of their own divisors, a genuinely ancient classification that has nothing to do with the letter charts later numerologists built; the modern system that assigns meaning to digit sums is a distinct, twentieth-century construction that happens to borrow the Pythagorean name.
None of this genealogy is hidden by the numerologists themselves: Balliett, Campbell and Jordan each wrote openly as originators and systematisers rather than as transmitters of a secret ancient science, and the chain from Balliett's 1908 book through Campbell's 1931 manual to Jordan's 1965 standardisation is well documented in the numerology literature's own bibliographies.
Where the Chaldean chart and the Balliett-descended chart assign different values to the same letters, a name totalling one figure in one system need not total the same figure in the other, since the two rest on unrelated letter-value tables rather than on a shared inheritance from any single ancient source.