Talk:List of numbers

Deletion discussion: Talk:List of numbers/Deletion

Naming of number articles

The titles of articles about numbers should be spelled out, and a link should be added to the article for the "year" with the same number. Numbers over 100 that are not divisible by 100 (101-199, 201-299) should include the word "and". (See discussion at Talk:One hundred and eleven. GUllman

Where should I put a link to One thousand seven hundred and twenty nine?? (new, by me) -- AndrewKepert 05:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've put it in thousand -- User:Karl Palmen 11 Nov 2003

"Numbers over 100 that are not divisible by 100 (101-199, 201-299) should not include the word "and". (See discussion at Talk:One hundred eleven. Denelson83 07:53, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)"

---

From the article:"(Articles about the numbers 21-29 will be developed at twenty until they are large enough for their own page, articles about 31-39 will be developed at thirty, articles about 101-199 will be developed at hundred, and so on.)"

This seems like a sensible way of avoiding stubs, but creates a couple of problems: Firstly, it can be quite confusing arriving at the "wrong" page by redirect, so care needs to be taken with the headings: see my suggestion at Talk:Twenty.

Secondly, it makes the see alsos a bit awkward, since e.g. Thirty currently links to itself several times (Thirty-one, Thirty-two, etc.), but not Forty, the next combined article - and yet, for consistency, it should do so, since that is the sequentially next integer. It also contains a section for Thirty-three, which points you to a full article - this mixture of combined and seperate is even harder to navigate, and I'm not sure it really makes sense.

Proposal

Both this page and English-language numerals have the nomenclature of English number names, and also a list of common numbers. I propose they are rationalised so that we have two closely-related (and interlinked) pages

• list of numbers is just a list of numbers, linking to pages that do (or should) have wiki pages.
• English-language numerals deals with the nomenclature, which strictly speaking form a numeral system not numbers, and so can be removed from list of numbers.

On this page, the main change is that the big table will be replaced by a list of whole numbers bigger than 100. This could be done by continuing the 0-100 list in a sparse fashion. e.g.

100, 111, 127, 222, 255, 273, 451, 666

1000, 1729, 8191

131071

1000000=10⁶, 1000000000=10⁹

10¹², 10¹⁵, 10¹⁸, 6.24×10¹⁸, 10²¹, 6.023×10²³, 10²⁴

and so on. Of course, the existing pages for Billion etc are essentially pages that disambiguate and explain some history. They should retain this role. The pages for the numbers 10²¹ don't exist.

Yes, and strictly speaking, the two physical constants I dropped into the list are probably not integers. They are there for example.

Food for thought, anyway. I may get around to this edit in the next week or so unless some other good ideas come in. --AndrewKepert 01:42, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Another way to organise these (and not disagreeing with Andrew above), from familiar to unfamilar:

• Natural numbers
  • Small natural numbers
  • Large natural numbers
  • Other natural numbers
• negative integers
• Fractional numbers
  • Fractional rational numbers
  • Irrational numbers
    • Irrational real numbers
      • Irrational algebraic real numbers
      • transcendental real numbers
    • Imaginary numbers
      • Imaginary complex numbers
      • Other hypercomplex numbers
• Transfinite numbers

(where these list items are really supposed to be headers). Notice also how we neatly get exactly one link per header (except in the natural numbers, due to that list's size), and also link to every term (both affirmative and negative). -- Toby Bartels 06:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Carl Sagan

Derp: A named integer is missing from this page: The Carl Sagan (400000000). Its the smallest number that satisfies the quote 'billions and billions' since the smallest number that satisfies 'billions' is two billion, and you have two of those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Billions_and_billions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.46.37 (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We would need reliable, independent quotes where that number actually gets called 'The Carl Sagan'. peterl (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

VfD

Quattuordecillion was listed on vfd for 8 days from Feb 23 to Mar 2 2004, and was redirected here. Pasted discussion from VfD:

• Quattuordecillion - dictionary definition Anthony DiPierro 06:16, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Could improve. Delete if not improve in 7 days -- Graham  :) 11:14, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Relocate to Wiktionary. Oberiko 12:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect. Being out of context, this doesn't make much sense. Would make much more sense as part of a numbers table (like in Webster's Dict). Main difference is the usage of "milliard" in Europe opposite to "billion" in the States to begin with. --Palapala 20:11, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Numbers table is at List of numbers. Anthony DiPierro 22:19, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Anthony. Both entries are there, in the context, where they belong. So why a seperate article? --Palapala 08:44, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Yea, could improve?!! AY 05:25, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary if not there already. Wile E. Heresiarch 12:13, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

zenzizenzizenzic

According to this link http://www.quinion.com/words/weirdwords/ww-zen1.htm it this term zenzizenzizenzic has been obsolete for centuries. Does it really belong here? It seems more like trivia. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:47, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I do agree, it's more a "museum word" than a real english word. Maybe it should be explained in How to name numbers in English, since zenzic means "squared", zenzizenzic "fourth power", zenzicube "sixth power", and, we could add, zenzizenzizenzizenzix would be "16^th power"... slord 15:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Names of really large numbers

Can your list of numbers go beyond 10^180?? Let me see if I got this correct:

• 10^183 = sexagintillion
• 10^213 = septuagintillion
• 10^243 = octogintillion
• 10^273 = nonagintillion
• 10^303 = centillion
• 10^603 = bicentillion
• 10^903 = tercentillion
• 10^1203 = quadricentillion
• 10^1503 = quinquacentillion
• 10^1803 = sexacentillion
• 10^2103 = septuacentillion
• 10^2403 = octocentillion
• 10^2703 = nonacentillion
• 10^3003 = millillion

User 66.32.154.142

---

There's no really "official" name for powers of ten above 10^305 (100 centillion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.65.69 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency on numbers pages

Number 911 redirects to 900 (number). 911 (number) is its own article.

That is ridiculous. Number 911 should redirect to 911 (number), which should have a link to 900 (number).

The second part is implemented here; the first is not.

Brianjd 06:38, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

Why not fix it then? — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 06:41, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

It redirects there because the text of 911 (number) used to be on 900 (number). Guess who split the page off .. -- User:Docu

The following pages do not exist:

• Number 257
• 257 (number)

There are probably a lot of changes to be made, so perhaps a bit of help?
Brianjd 07:21, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

Pages in the form "Number N" (0 to 40) or spelled out in words eg Nineteen (0 to 20) redirect correctly.
Brianjd 10:38, 2004 Jun 19 (UTC)

Pages in the form "Number N" (41 to 100) redirect correctly.
Brianjd 05:46, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)

Pages in the form "Number N" (101 to 122) redirect correctly.
Brianjd 12:26, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Disorganization

Great Lord, is this article ever disorganized. There are places where it repeats itself no fewer than three times. Was anyone paying attention when they added entries? I hope nobody minds if I copyedit and delete some unnecessary tables. --Ardonik 10:41, 2004 Aug 5 (UTC)

Go right ahead, and edit boldly! -- The Anome 10:44, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This way, I suppose we will figure out which ones are "unnessary".. -- User:Docu

I think the table of negative integers is unnecessary, since there are no plans to write articles on any negative integers besides -1 and -40. I've re-listed those two under "Notable Integers." Anton Mravcek 17:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Retraction

Boy howdy, I don't know how it happened, but this article is looking great now. Good work, everyone! Now, all that's left is to transplant/merge/move information between this article and Names of large numbers.... --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 01:35, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Million raised to the Nth power, thousand raised to the Nth power

Regarding a recent contribution by anonymous User:132.205.45.148, I think it's confusing to express the large numbers both in terms of powers of a million and in terms of powers of a thousand. I think the millionⁿ is more comprehensible, so I'm reverting the change. (Sorry, anon; I know you must have worked on it for a while. Feel free to make your case here.) --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 02:21, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

The million^# is adequate in relating the European way of numbering, but the American way is based on powers of a thousand. It illustrates how the name nonillion equates to 1000^(9+1), or 30 zeros, from the root part non (thus Vigintillion clearly shows the 20th power of 1000, times 1000; etc). It may be more clear of it is 1000*1000^9, but I entered it in a shorter manner. <br/
In case anyone reverts, there also contains a correction to an incorrect power of a million in my edit, you'll have to find that and reimplement it.
132.205.45.148

You have a good point; I never thought about the names of numbers that way before. I think I'll finish what you started and remove the powers of a million (keeping the powers of a thousand, of course) as soon as I can switch to a faster computer. Is it just me, or is the Wikipedia rather slow this afternoon? --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 21:37, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed systematic names for powers of 10

Why does this article give space for proposed systems? Elsewhere in Wikipedia, articles on proposed systems have been deleted since they only refer to proposed systems rather than actual systems in use. If these systems are actually being used somewhere in the world, then fine - rename them as actual systems. Otherwise, why not remove until such time as they are being used. Ian Cairns 22:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Surely if there is one place in this Wikipedia where even hypothetical English numbering systems are relevant, it would be here, in this article? How else could our readers compare, or even learn about such systems? --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 03:57, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

A case could be made for putting the information at How to name numbers in English. Or perhaps that article should refer to this article for info on the proposed systems. Anton Mravcek 18:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cleaned up discussion

The content of this Talk page seems to have been accidentally duplicated at the beginning of September 2004. I have removed the duplicate material, taking care not to delete any new (interpolated) discussion (of which there wasn't any, AFAICT). I also created a new first header ("Naming of number articles") and removed a link to /redirects on the very first line since it only redirected to Table of prime factors (apparently someone's redirection test performed outside of the Sandbox). - dcljr 23:51, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of number names

How close to being correct is the history of these number names:

One through Ten

The English number names from one to 10 are related through the Indo-European root to the corresponding prefixes for both Greek and Latin, with just one exception: mono- literally means single and one is just a synonym.

Hundred

According to the American Heritage Dictionary Third Edition (1997) the names for 100 in Greek, Latin, and English all have the same indo-European root, which is also the same as those for 10.

Thousand

This is where it starts to vary. Both the prefixes for 1000 in Greek chilia- and Latin mill- have the same root, but English's "thousand" is unrelated; it comes from German literally meaning "swollen hundred".

Ten thousand

Greek myria- for 10,000, prior to its number name, meant "countless", and was chosen perhaps because the Greeks described it as a number "too large to count to".

Million (10^6)

The word million, meaning 10^6, is common to almost all languages of today. I think it is simply an augmented form of the Latin word for 1000.

Gillion (10^9)

Rowlett's proposed word for 10^9 is a combination of the SI prefix "giga" and the illion suffix, on the model of mega/million.

10^12 to 10^30

The remainder of Rowlett's proposed words are simply Greek numerical prefixes attatched to the illion suffix, simply to differentiate it from the traditional system with Latin numerical prefixes.

Googol (10^100)

Googol, I really don't know how it came. It was coined around 1940 by someone who wanted to think about huge numbers, but I never found how this word actually came to be as it is. Is it an alteration of goggle or short for googoogoogoo...?? 66.245.115.43 20:00, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is a story behind it. I will direct you to one page in Internet that explains how the name appeared (http://members.fortunecity.com/jonhays/nagoog.htm). It is consistent with the information given by Carl Sagan in "Cosmos" (the book). I don't recall if this was mentioned in the TV series. BTW, it also explains the "googolplex". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.201.177 (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a book at the library that talks about this very thing. I'm going to check it out, let you know what I find in there. PrimeFan 21:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look under Edward Kasner, the mathematician who introduced the term (it was originally named by his nephew). Google was named after Googol. Ian Cairns 21:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why are googol and googolplex not even mentioned in this article? Pottersson (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

They are listed at Large numbers Zarcadia (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"few" and "several"

I'm skeptical about the claims that "few" and (especially) "several" are often most associated with fixed values. Can anyone corroborate? 4pq1injbok 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think those additions to the article are serious. Anyway, I have merged the entire section in question into the article Placeholder name, where similar material was already to be found -- leaving just a link here in the List of numbers article. (Can someone find a more proper way to include this link in the article?) In the process, I removed those remarks assigning specific values to few and several.--Niels Ø 13:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Vigesimal English names

i.e. the system with scores. The consistent thing to do would be to give vigesimal names for either every number (in an appropriate range) or none of them. Of course, threescore and ten is notable for its appearance in Psalms 90:10, so it may deserve its special place; in this case four score and seven is similarly notable. Thoughts? 4pq1injbok 01:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed section

I want to see if anyone has any opinions on whether the proposed systematic names section should have its own article. This was brought to my attention by Rowlett's Afd. Georgia guy 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll bring this up at the Talk of WP:NUM. PrimeFan 14:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

perdime & perdecime

Is there any verifiable source for perdime and perdecime being the appropriate corresponding term for one tenth on the lines of percent and permille? And I do mean a source not derived from wikipedia itself. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Base 64

It will be quite interesting if someone add to the neat table in each number article contained also the representation in the Base 64 system used to encode e-mails...

In time: Someone has any reference on the babylonian base 60 system? It is "writable" in the modern ocidental aphabet? --Lucas Gallindo 21:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Babylonian numerals are composed of cuneiform symbols that do not correspond to anything in any modern script. However, I believe some Medieval and Renaissance mathematical writings used base 60 by writing each sexagit (a word I just invented for a base-60 digit) as a Roman or Arabic number, separated by some mark. —Tamfang 22:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Plane 2 of Unicode might have cuneiform symbols. Or maybe math historians have their own private use area assignments and fonts for them. Anton Mravcek 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Completion

This list is horribly incomplete. Would somebody please add the rest of the integers? I'll try to get a start on the real numbers next week. 142.59.195.50 07:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a joke. The list is complete in that it has every number anyone would ever want to look up for a reason other than just to see that Wikipedia has an article on it. PrimeFan (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this complaint. There should at least be a little wikipedian humor by making the page a permanent stub. Haberdasheryisnotacrime (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a joke that stopped being funny SOOO LOOOOOOOOONG ago. Numerao (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize I'm being pedantic here, but I propose we change the name of the article to "List of Notable Numbers". Since, as pointed out above, we are not listing all numbers.Shon Lee (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. After all, somebody might start editing the page forever... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.71.124 (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

line breaks

I admit that the "table" format of numbers up to 100 is somehow nice, but on a 1400px wide screen it fills at most half of a window which is only half of the screen width large... (and am I wrong or should the "200" line already be indented like 300ff? or is the latter indentation a vandalism?)

Much worse, the list of notable numbers. Couldn't we write them just one after the other, separated by space? (Maybe a paragraph break at 100, 1000 etc or so?) Also, it should be put there to clarify, what numbers and why qualify here as "notable". — MFH:Talk 00:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entries for 310-390 and 410-490 don't exist. I'm trying to clean up the additional list, as well, but it's not easy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Once in a while, you just have to take a machete to these things. I've somewhat arbitrarily removed a lot of these and added explanations to the ones that remain. If I've gone slightly too far, just restore the number you think I shouldn't've removed, but also an explanation to show that it is notable. And if I've really gone too far, there's always undo and rollback. Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Could this ever be a featured article?

I think this is the coolest article on Wikipedia. I know it's a weird suggestion, but I feel like this article is fascinating enough to be the featured article. What do other people think? Willow1729 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Being a list, it would have to be on Wikipedia:Featured lists (which is easier than Wikipedia:Featured articles). But fascinating is not a criteria at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Being featured on Wikipedia is about quality and not about having an interesting or important subject (although those things may cause more editors to work on improving the quality). I don't think the current list is near featured quality and I don't want to do the work to bring it there. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it cool, but for me it is certainly useful. Though there is one thing that bother me about it, like that list of notable integers. What about you, PrimeHunter, what bothers you about this article? What kind of work do you think it needs to bring it near featured quality? Anton Mravcek (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have said that. I just looked at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria which doesn't seem to fit the list well but the type and scope of list may have a lot to do with that. There are several things I would prefer omitted and others I would prefer expanded with annotations. But there are no clear inclusion criteria and I don't see how to make them. I guess people will just have different ideas about what is worth including. When I haven't worked on the list and don't plan to, maybe I should keep my opinions to myself but here are some of them anyway since you ask. I haven't thought so carefully about them. There are too few references (I only count 4 unformatted external links). More table entries should be wikilinked (table entries are allowed to repeat wikilinks from earlier). The lead is too short, and misleading since large parts of the list are not lists of articles. Integers should have their own level 2 heading and not be spread in various subsections of rational numbers. I dislike "Notable integers" even after the trimming. It seems highly subjective and I disagree with several of the choices. I would like short definitions for several things, for example Named integers (where the actual value should also be listed when practical) and various sets of numbers. Perfect numbers shouldn't have a table with large decimal expansions but maybe a list with formulas or smaller numbers. Gillion system and Myriad system are not important enough to have tables with rarely used names. The Algebraic numbers table shouldn't mention Length of the diagonal of ... when the rectangle or box has an irrational side length. External links section should be better formatted with author name first and not part of the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Alternate names"-best title?

I'm not sure "alternate names" is the best label for that table column. Some of the words are not synonyms for the numbers, but rather nouns describing sets that contain that many objects, if that makes any sense..."four" and "quadruplet" seem to have subtly different meanings. Should this be changed, and if so, to what? --Lkjhgfdsa (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I stuck some more verbiage into the header of that table, as a temporary solution. 4pq1injbok (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Delimiters in the myriad system

(Ahh, back in one of my old haunts...)

Is there some good reason for using space and apostrophe and nothing as delimiters for 10^32 and 10^64 and 10^128 respectively in the myriad system? The first and third especially seem quite poor choices. All I've seen Knuth himself discuss are the , ; : delimiters. If no-one speaks up I'm inclined to just change the higher ones to apostrophe throughout. 4pq1injbok (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Two months is long enough. Done. 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One reason for using spaces has just become obvious with your change: without the spaces the number cannot wrap, making the table far wider that the screen width. That's hardly desirable. — Emil J. 10:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Conway's constant

Conway's constant has recently been removed from the suspected transcendental section for the following reason 'Since Conway's constant is a root of a known polynomial, it certainly isn't transcendental' with the polynomial in question being

$x^{71}-x^{69}-2x^{68}-x^{67}+2x^{66}+2x^{65}+x^{64}-x^{63}-x^{62}-x^{61}-x^{60}-x^{59}\,$

${}+2x^{58}+5x^{57}+3x^{56}-2x^{55}-10x^{54}-3x^{53}-2x^{52}+6x^{51}+6x^{50}+x^{49}+9x^{48}-3x^{47}\,$

${}-7x^{46}-8x^{45}-8x^{44}+10x^{43}+6x^{42}+8x^{41}-5x^{40}-12x^{39}+7x^{38}-7x^{37}+7x^{36}+x^{35}\,$

${}-3x^{34}+10x^{33}+x^{32}-6x^{31}-2x^{30}-10x^{29}-3x^{28}+2x^{27}+9x^{26}-3x^{25}+14x^{24}-8x^{23}\,$

Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "http://localhost:6011/en.wikipedia.org/v1/":): {\displaystyle {} - 7x^{21} + 9x^{20} + 3x^{19} - 4x^{18} - 10x^{17} - 7x^{16} + 12x^{15} + 7x^{14} + 2x^{13} - 12x^{12} - 4x^{11} \,}

${}-2x^{10}+5x^{9}+x^{7}-7x^{6}+7x^{5}-4x^{4}+12x^{3}-6x^{2}+3x-6.\,$

which is fine, but doesn't this mean that it should be listed in the algebraic section? You see I was going to put it there myself......... but I have no idea what a root of a polynomial is and have no idea how to show the number without using algebra or if this is even possible. Any help? Robo37 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A root of a polynomial is a value of x for which the value of the polynomial is 0. For example, the roots of the polynomial x² − 1 are 1 and −1. Any number which is a root of a polynomial that has integer coefficients is, by definition, algebraic; specifically, Conway's constant is indeed algebraic. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, so then am I right in thinking that it is impossible to show Conway's constant without using algebra? I mean by only using functions and integers so that it can be shown in the algebraic section of this article. Robo37 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It won't have a "nice" expression in terms of integers, simple arithmetic functions and nth roots like the other numbers mentioned in the Algebraic numbers section (well, I am almost certain it won't, as I am sure Conway would have found such an expression if it existed). Probably the most concise way to define it is "the unique positive real root of the following polynomial ...", which is how it is described in the look-and-say sequence article. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The transcendence of logarithms

All of the logarithms have just been removed from this article for being transcendental, but I fail to see how this is true; the first thing it says in the article about algebraic numbers is that 'In mathematics, an algebraic number is a complex number that is a root of a non-zero polynomial in one variable with rational (or equivalently, integer) coefficients.' and as log₃ (2), log₂ (3), log₂ (5), log₂ (6), log₂ (7), log₂ (9), log₂ (10), log₂ (11) and log₂ (12) are the roots of 3^x - 2, 2^x - 3, 2^x - 5, 2^x - 6, 2^x - 7, 2^x - 9, 2^x - 10, 2^x - 11 and 2^x - 12 respectively I think that it's pretty safe to say that they're algebraic. Robo37 (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, those are all transcendental. The definition of "polynomial" for the purpose of algebraic numbers is that the exponents are integers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

---

a polynomial is a finite length expression constructed from variables (also known as indeterminates) and constants, by using the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and constant non-negative whole number exponents.

— Polynomial

---

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Improving the List of Notable Integers

Surely, other integers meet the qualification of being notable "for their mathematical properties or cultural meanings." To get the ball rolling, I'm adding zero, which has an extensive history. Shy (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation for Tau

I notice there is currently a "Citation Needed" tag for the constant Tau. Tau is two times Pi. If Pi is transcendental, then likewise so is Tau. Does the 'Citation Needed' here stem from the fact we need that spelled out, or because Tau doesn't seem to be a universally accepted constant? 123.243.125.161 (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The latter: tau is not a particularly common name for the constant.—Emil J. 13:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Steinhaus–Moser notation

Shouldn't this be here? the term Megiston was in the guinness book of world records as one possible candidate for largest named number. seems people would appreciate its mention here. i know i would.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."

Am I the only one that sees the humor in calling a list of numbers incomplete?--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 04:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Not. At. All. Incidentally, so does xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.62.0 (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the real humor is in thinking it's going to be less incomplete via (finite) expansion.  ;-) --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I can construct a complete list of integers, and from this, I can construct the rationals. If you take care of the reals, I'll do the complex. Of course, they won't all fit on one page; we'll have to link to other pages. Recursion is a great tool. Bob Kerns (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear. And it's fantastic. 82.57.33.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC).

Maybe it would be appropriate to switch from the current template to the Dynamic list template, which says "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries." --nandhp (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Qubed (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't really as amusing IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's funny because it's true. And removing it is just disappointing for all the people who came to see this because of xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.113.199 (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposition from nandhp. Cliff (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the reason why this list can't be complete be mentioned? -- Hkmaly (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Riemann zeta function examples

ζ(4) has been added, and ζ(3) and its reciprocal, but not the more notable ζ(2) and its reciprocal. I tend to think that all should be removed, but that's another matter entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Split of irrational numbers

I propose that the recently created List of Irrational Numbers be merged back to or redirected to List of numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose not. As the article states, this is supposed to be a list of pre-existing articles (on Wikipedia) that have more comprehensive lists. Besides, articles like Order of magnitude (numbers) are more comprehensive than this article anyhow. Do I make myself clear? LutherVinci (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the miscellaneous terms from the transcendental section, now that we have a more exhaustive list. LutherVinci (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable, without consensus. I'm reverting the changes to this article. See WP:BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur's reversion. I also agree that the new list of irrational numbers should be merged back here and replaced with a redirect - there is no need for a separate list, the title is not a common search term, and the article is just a content fork. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No one ever tries to listen to me on Wikipedia, but I'll have a go anyhow. The article says, in the lead-in, that this is a list of articles about numbers. But, as I read further, I find that it is a huge article that is labeled incomplete; because it doesn't link to any exhaustive list as it promises, but instead attempts to list all numbers itself. I am merely trying to A) Fulfill the article to the way it describes itself, and B) making it easier to give an exhaustive list of all numbers: by linking to smaller articles as it states clearly in WP:FORK; a list of numbers is far to big a subject for one article.

By the way, did you not suggest, in your own words, that the Zeta function be removed? did I not do exactly what you suggested was reasonable? are you denying yourself, man? LutherVinci (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

For your last question, the answer is no. You moved them to the subarticle, rather than removing them. A different matter entirely. For the first question, it would be a reasonable provision, except that, for some numbers (Brun's constant comes to mind), we have no idea whether it's rational, or even whether it's a finite sum. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BRD. If you disagree with my edit, then discussion is what you should do, not go out and start destroying information without cause.LutherVinci (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The bold revision was your fork. I've reverted it. Please discuss. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to merge any information which seems appropriate to this article. I don't see the need to cover for edits made to the wrong article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Myriad System

Myriad System: the commas separating the zeroes are in the wrong place fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.27.252 (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

No, they aren't. That's where the commas go in that system. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't 1 be included as a prime number?

Shouldn't 1 be included as a prime number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.65.69 (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No. See Prime number#Primality of one. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I tell you there are some people that say 1 might be able to be called a prime number! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.65.69 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is, IMO, a pretty common misconception. I misunderstood primes in this way for some time myself. I think the problem comes from the informal definition of prime that is first given to students. It goes something like, "Any number that is divisible only by 1 and itself is a prime number." This is trivially true for 1 but because the "definition" is incorrect, it leads people to think that 1 is prime. Cliff (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

List of numbers?

Just a little quirk here, but shouldn't we have 1-infinity here? 04:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtopman (talk • contribs)

XKCD

This page has been featured ;-) http://xkcd.com/899/ --Marekventur (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, this page is officially a joke. -- 202.124.73.154 (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

• Particularly the sentence "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." 167.107.191.217 (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's literally true, though helping in that way is surely a sisyphian task if ever there was one. 146.6.208.13 (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh gosh, Randy just edit-spammed another Wikipedia page. --98.206.231.79 (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Googol

Why is there no mention of googol (1 x 10^100, the number in which Google is named after) under powers of 10??? I would think in an English speaking internet connected world in these days, googol would at least get a slight mention (after all, its far more familiar to people than the vast majority of the other powers of ten mentioned in this article). — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I mean, really, how many people (that you can count with your hands) have heard of a "thousand quinvigintillion"??? — al-Shimoni (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not mentioned here because it doesn't belong here. It belongs in Large numbers, where it is mentioned (Large numbers#Examples). The "powers of ten" numbers are those named in a systematic way; "googol" is more of a joke name than anything else. Ptorquemada (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.100.201.177, 16 May 2011

I suggest including the 'googolplex' right after the 'googol", beint it the number 1 followed by a googol of zeroes or 10^10^100 You might also link it to the wikipedia article http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex

189.100.201.177 (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done by User:Jowa fan. — Bility (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

SI-derived subsection incomplete

The higher SI prefixes (G, T, P, E, Z, Y) and their associated binary prefixes section should probably be included in that little subsection. Also adding columns to the table for powers of 1000 on one side and powers of 1024 on the other might be helpful. Trutheality (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Done 130.49.222.251 (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Zero is not a natural number

Grrr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.17.214 (talk) 16:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually there's no good consensus on that. Maybe it should be mentioned? It's my personal opinion that the natural numbers do not include 0, so I would prefer to have it that way as well. Check out the article on natural numbers. 24.9.63.64 (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Shux. I was going to propose "whole numbers," but they appear to be just as ambiguously defined.Thefifthsetpin (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Read the Peano axioms. What the natural numbers comprise is not a matter of "opinion", but a matter of how a particular author constructs the naturals. If I interpret my Peano 0 as the number 2, I have a perfectly valid (though non-standard) construction of the naturals because it satisfies the Peano axioms. It's reasonable to take it as read that $\mathbb {N}$ can be ambiguous, and math students (and mathematicians) tend to move toward one definition or the other to be used regularly. For instance, number theorists, almost without exception, take $\mathbb {N}$ as $\{1,2,3...\}$. In computer science and set theory, 0 is often used as the first element. For the sake of clarity, some authors also use $\mathbb {N} ^{*}$ to indicate the set of naturals beginning with 1, with $\mathbb {N}$ simply meaning the set of naturals beginning with 0. Others take the opposite route, $\mathbb {N}$ meaning the set of naturals beginning with 1 and $\mathbb {N} ^{0}$ to be the set beginning with 0. Some even use both. In short, it doesn't matter what a particular person "thinks the natural numbers are". It's a matter of the definition used in a particular context.

Remember, "Zero is the most natural of numbers" . 203.11.71.124 (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Muslims and the number 786

The article currently states that 786 is "regarded as sacred by some Muslims" and there's a lack of a citation. This is the closest I could find to an authoritative source, an online Islamic school:

I would rewrite this line of the article to be: "786, used by some Muslims as shorthand for the full Basmala ("In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate"), although there is no such evidence in the Quran or Hadith."

Ronomatic (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Ronomatic

There are currently no reliable sources in any of the WP articles which reference this numerological concept. I dont see this as a relevant number to list here, unless we include many more numbers with numerological importance that DO have sources. I recommend we remove this, along with -40, (trivial fact), 42 (not that well known outside geekdom), 255 (well, it needs more of an explanation besides what is given), 496 (already covered in the section on perfect numbers), and 2147483647 (trivial fact). XKCD is making a valid point: where do we draw the line, since there are two entire infinities of numbers, so there will be hugely many which have some significance. do we simply want this to be a list of every number which has a wikipedia article?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why not. The page is after all headed "This is a list of articles about numbers". Where do we draw the line? That's easy: if a number isn't notable enough to have a Wikipedia article dedicated to it, then it doesn't belong in this list. (OK, I'm being a bit glib here: I'm sure we'll run into particular numbers that provoke debate, and it won't always be easy. But at least it gives us a clear guideline.) Jowa fan (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ref tags aren't good for talk pages b/c there's no references section. The online Islamic school thing: "SunniPath, the Online Islamic Academy". Retrieved 17 May 2011.

A quick search for the right terms leads to find a WP article that explains why 786 is significant: Abjad_numerals#Uses_of_the_Abjad_system, although the references in that article aren't exactly reliable.

130.49.222.251 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't the article name be "List of notable numbers"? If it's simply the "List of numbers," then by definition that list will always be shockingly incomplete. John M Baker (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Angillion

An Angillion is described as 10 ^5428489264561516262842816564264265846486452918498176459187615465219817 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.194.154 (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's safe to assume that the pattern of numbers seen here is the same pattern that often arises when randomly pressing fingers against the numbers on a keyboard. LegendoftheGoldenAges85 (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request from Lmbreed, 18 May 2011

Digit incorrect in Transcendentals list, item Logarithm of 2 to base 10: .3002999... should be .30102999...

Lmbreed (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

What it means?

In article it's said: exp(-W 0(-ln(3^{1/3}))) = 2.47805268028830..., what, when put to the root to itself, is equal to 3 put to the root of itself. What means "put to the root to itself" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.126.86 (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edited. I guess it means that ${\sqrt[{2.47805268028830...}]{2.47805268028830...}}={\sqrt[{3}]{3}}$, just as ${\sqrt[{2}]{2}}={\sqrt[{4}]{4}}$. Robo37 (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That isn't mathematically correct. What you're claiming is essentially that x^(1/x) = some constant, for all x. This is easily disproved - for instance, 2^0.5 = 1.4142...., whereas 1^1 = 1. Seleucus (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Robo37 is right. ${\sqrt[{2.47805268028830...}]{2.47805268028830...}}={\sqrt[{3}]{3}}=1.4422495703...$, and ${\sqrt[{2}]{2}}={\sqrt[{4}]{4}}=1.4142135623...$. Robo37 only gave two different equations and made no claim about all x. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Natural numbers table

Which numbers should be listed? I was leaning toward only those with articles (not redirects), and sufficient to include all numbers (at least up to 1×10⁹) as a listing. For example, 1729 need not appear in the table, as it's listed in 1000, even though it has a separate article. There's a lot of editwarring in the 21x and 22x range, so I thought I'd try to get some consensus on the talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

bases should be removed

Bases are not numbers, but systems, and have no place on a list of numbers. I propose removing them from this list. Cliff (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

No discussion, removing section. Cliff (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

ALL non-actual-number stuff should be removed as OFF TOPIC

I concur with Cliff and expand on it:

Most of this article isn't about numbers, but amounts of things which, with units, only happen to have a "number" associated with the amounts. And worse, these "numbers" (which are really "amounts") can be different depending on the units and can be represented in different ways depending on base (and choice of symbols, etc.). Any discussion of numbers as anything other than a location on a number line (or complex plane) is not a discussion about numbers. This article needs to remove anything with units, anything mystical-only, and anything "cultural"-only, etc.. Such material, included as it currently is, makes this article a big stupid mishmash.

108.7.2.45 (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Why not make a list here for discussion? Rklawton (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Two numbers mentioned on this program I saw that weren't well described and aren't on this article.

I was watching this program called The Code which specifically mentions two numbers, one just under 3.57 wich is described as the point between predictable things and chaos, and one thay's roughly 1.15 which is said to be how much more "possitive" something gets when you double it. What are these numbers? Robo37 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The first number, just under 3.57, probably refers to the parameter value of the logistic map at which its behaviour becomes chaotic. This is not an especially notable number, as it is specific to this particular map - the Feigenbaum constants are more universal and more notable in this area. I don't have any ideas about your second number, but you could try asking at the Mathematics Reference Desk. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Robo37 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request to fix an inconsistency.

The section on natural numbers starts with 0. The notable numbers section says that 1 is the smallest natural number. Of course, 0 is smaller (less than) than 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.185.8 (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

People don't agree on whether or not 0 is a natural number: see the page natural number. I've changed the notable integers section so that it doesn't mention natural numbers at all. Jowa fan (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Exponents

The reason for the exponent notation, is to show what billion is in the two systems: 1000¹⁺² in the short scale, and 1000000² in the long scale. Fractional exponents are not how the numbers are thought of. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Transcendence of -2W(1/2)

So -2W(1/2), the solution to exp(x)=x^2, is listed as a "suspected transcendental," and I'm wondering why... It's pretty straightforward to show, using the Lindemann-Weierstrass Theorem, that W(r) for any rational number r must be transcendental (Let z=W(r), so r=ze^z. If z is algebraic, then r/z = e^z should be algebraic. But e^z is transcendental for any nonzero algebraic z, a contradiction - see Omega constant for an example). Can this be moved to the list of transcendentals? - japanada (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I went ahead and changed it for now. Feel free to change it back if I'm wrong. Japanada (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have source for that? Your proof is nothing like a formal proof but in any case you cannot rely on your own mathematical reasoning except for the most trivial calculations; see WP:CALC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't find any sources quoting that fact, so I changed it back for now. But if anyone out there knows of any sources, it would be really good to know (just as a side note, I found this fact referenced on the transcendental numbers page, but it wasn't cited there either). Unfortunately it seems as though most mathematicians would consider it too trivial, at least after Lindemann-Weierstrass, to ever publish the result, so I'm doubtful if it'll ever be documented in an official source, and since it's not a totally routine calculation either, it looks like this list might never be completely accurate... Japanada (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

69105

If 69105 is included in Wikipedia, why isn't it here? Isn't this a number index — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.110.31.68 (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a "number" of included numbers in the list at List of numbers#Notable integers, but not all the numbers with their own article are there. 69105 doesn't seem all that notable to me, but perhaps a separate entry there could be justified. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Natural numbers table comment

I added an invisible comment: "Per consensus established so long ago I can't find it, this table only includes articles, not redirects, and is intended to include articles at least pointing to all the articles on "small" (less than 10¹⁰) numbers. If someone has a different idea of consensus for what should be in this section, please discuss."

Any comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow.

I cannot believe someone took time out of their day TO MAKE A LIST OF NUMBERS. --User:SuprKidd (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The main purpose for some of the sections, especially the natural numbers, is to provide links to articles about the numbers. But Wikipedia editors do spend time on some topics which seem odd to many. See Wikipedia:Unusual articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name, redux

Anyone object to renaming the article "List of notable numbers" from its current name "List of numbers", as per the suggestion above? As some of the discussion on this page shows, the current name is silly. Loraof (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I support this rename. Jamgoodman (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Why are there two references to Christianity?

Either we need to include all of the major world religions and their notable numbers, or none of them. My opinion would be if someone wanted to start an article about notable numbers in religion (or notable numbers is Christianity) then they should do so and leave it out of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:1980:3100:1AAC:E61D:2DFF:FE29:F221 (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The reverence attached to mathematical meaning is lost either at 42 being the Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything, or at 69 for the reference to the sex position. If we are doing culturally relevant numbers, the best-selling (and probably most venerated) book ever should be included over a 1979 paperback. 124.171.69.178 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of numbers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20011125134506/http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/indx.html to http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/indx.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is infinitely incomplete.

Is that encyclopedic?Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

No, especially not when the previous sentence says "This is a list of articles about numbers". I have removed it.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

However, It might not be too great of an idea to, somehow, imply that this article is complete! This article started out saying that this article may be incomplete, which sounds right to me.Marvin Ray Burns (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I dont think it's implied to be complete. "may be incomplete" sounds like there is a goal to be complete in some sense. If it sounds like it's OK to add any random Wikipedia article about numbers then I oppose it. It's a list of selected articles with no clear inclusion criteria. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, @PrimeHunter:. I completely agree that this comes across as a list of selected articles with no clear inclusion criteria. I've been wading through the same issue at List of Mathematical Constants and have left some thoughts in the talk page there. Both lists are complete messes and need to be sorted out. I'd like to make a more clear cut set of inclusion criteria incorporating the notability of the numbers, the number of times they've been referenced in academic literature, whether they have their own Wikipedia article and so on. What are your thoughts on this? Obviously, a list of numbers will contain many infinite sets and can never be complete. So its entries must be cherry picked. I think a foreword about the incompleteness of the list is also a good idea, but probably in such a way that doesn't imply that any uninteresting number should be added. Happy editing, Jam. Jamgoodman (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Move "alternate names" columns to Numeral_(linguistics)

The alternate names listed in this article are a mess. Furthermore, they have little relation to the numbers listed in the article as mathematical objects, they are only relevant to linguistic discussions. I propose that those columns be moved to tables in the Numeral_(linguistics) article. Jamgoodman (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

To do (2019-04-30)

I've outlined some tasks that I think should be done to the article and ordered them by priority:

• Find a way of tidying up the natural numbers section. I've rearranged and included what is, to my mind, the most sensible way of organising the section but it's left with too many headers and inconsistent formatting.
• Establish and enact a clear-cut set of criteria for inclusion in the article. This is also an issue pertinent to list of mathematical constants. Similarly, all numbers that do not fulfil the criteria for notability should be removed from the article. Including both pi and 1/pi is redundant. I think the criteria should include (1) being referenced in a set number (e.g. 3) academic papers, (2) having its own Wiki article and (3) having a specific name.
• Remove or cut down the column detailing the notability of the algebraic irrational numbers. There is far too much fluff and irrelevant details here; all we need is a brief few sentences detailing why a number is notable. Saying that a number is the "Length of the diagonal of a 1 × √10 rectangle. " is not a case for notability. How often do you encounter a rectangle of length 1 by √10?
• Detail the notability of all numbers in the article, except perhaps the small natural numbers.
• Give references for whether each number is irrational, transcendental, etc. I don't expect anyone to systematically go through the entire article but over the next few years, if each person could find one reference for each constant, it would dramatically improve the quality of the article.
• Sort each sub-list by the constants' names or decimal expansions.
• Improve leads.
• Cut down the decimal expansions of each number to a set length of digits. Giving (as is the case for some numbers) 30 digits is just fluff. If someone wants to find the full decimal expansion of a number, they can go to oeis.org, not Wikipedia.

Jamgoodman (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:CONCISE and consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 12:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

---

List of numbers → List of notable numbers – The list is, by definition, incomplete. The best it can be is a list of particularly notable numbers. The page title should reflect that. Jamgoodman (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support, the only meaningful way to title the page. Thanks for the thoughtful nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and WP:NCLIST: "the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article." Besides which, not all the numbers are necessarily more "notable" than other numbers, as explained in the lead. Station1 (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose it doesn't appear the word "notable" is included in lists even if they only include "notable" ones such as List of people from Epsom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: while notability is a criteria for judging whether topics belong in the encyclopedia, we shouldn't be using words like notable in Wikipedia's voice, since notability is ultimately subjective, and we shouldn't state subjective opinion as fact. Existing title satisfies list-naming criteria by being reasonably concise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Table of natural numbers

I think the current form has negative value...

(copied from current copy of the page)

I think the previously spaced (2018) form was better; after modification, it would be:

In addition to respacing (and removing the, now misplaced, blank line), I suggest

1. Removing 10¹⁰, as it's a redirect
2. Explaining that the "Larger numbers" link includes Google and Googleplex
3. Removing "sortable", because it isn't, really.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arthur. I'm the guilty party who changed the table from what it originally was. I did so because I thought the large, inconsistent gaps made for very awkward formatting. But what if we took some of the larger numbers out of the table? I don't think it makes much sense having them all in the same table since it's effectively a list with gaps in it. I think your other three suggestions are good and I support them. Jamgoodman (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamgoodman: I don't see it as a list with gaps. I see it as multiple lists; spacing by 1s, by 10s, spacing by first digit (300–900, 1000–9000, 10000–90000), by number of digits (10⁵–10⁹), and miscellaneous larger numbers. Perhaps they don't have to start so that the numbers are in columns 0–9, but that shows the patterns of the respective lists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jamgoodman: How about ending with ....

260	261						270	280	290
			300	400	500	600	700	800	900
	1000	2000	3000	4000	5000	6000	7000	8000	9000
	10000	20000	30000	40000	50000	60000	70000	80000	90000
105	106	107	108	109	larger numbers, including 10100 and1010100

Only one more row than your compressed table, and you can see the pattern of the table. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

That looks like an improvement. Newystats (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Lennart97 (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'd love to see the warning about 'indiscriminate, excessive or irrelevant examples' disappear from the top of this article. To achieve this, I've started a cleanup based on one clear inclusion criterium that the article has: 'only add links to numbers that have articles'. There are certainly more to be removed, but I've started by removing the following:

• from Algebraic numbers: the square roots of 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.
• from Transcedental numbers: the reciprocals of e and pi, the Riemann Zeta function at s=2 and s=4, and the base ten logarithm of e.
• from Real numbers: all red-linked numbers, being Barban's constant, Murata's constant, Van der Pauw's constant, the quadratic class number constant, Sarnak's constant, the carefree and strongly carefree constant, Taniguchi's constant, and the Continued Fraction Constant.

Please let me know if you oppose any of these removals! Also let me know about any other numbers that you feel should be removed. Lennart97 (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

More removals:

• from List of integers notable for their cultural meanings: any number for which the significance does not lie in the number itself, but in a number of X, whether X is fingers on a hand, players in a football team or years lived until one can vote. Also removed Catch-22.
• from List of integers notable for their use in units, measurements and scales: 25 (number of cents in a quarter), doesn't seem particularly notable. To this section I have added 12, since it is notable both for use in units/measurements as well as culturally (it was already present in the cultural section).

As for List of integers notable in computing, I'd like some input from someone more familiar with computing. It seems to me like the powers of two related to 8-, 16-, 32- and 64-bit systems are definitely notable, but currently there is no consistency in listing either or both of 2^x (number of combinations) and 2^x-1 (integer maximum value). As for the 'most popular RSA public key prime exponent' and the 'hexadecimal million', I simply have no idea whether they are notable. Lennart97 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, while there is still a lot to improve on this article, I don't think the 'example farm' template is still justified, so I've removed it. Lennart97 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

iⁱ

The imaginary unit raised to itself, iⁱ ca. 0.20787957 could be added to the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6B0:E:2B18:0:0:0:80 (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

It could, but why is that number notable? Lennart97 (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

262 has a page

Shouldn't it be added to the natural nunber table? 5.144.48.81 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. Certes (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Science behind numbers

I want it to be all about numbers about their science 76.68.27.99 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you make that more specific? —Tamfang (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Do we need a page for numbers not included in the List of Numbers?

54,805, for example, is missing. Might want to collect these somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:281:8C00:98CD:A687:100:F4FA (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope that is a joke. —Tamfang (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tamfang 2600:1700:281:8C00:98CD:A687:100:F4FA is totally not joking. WP, the world, the universe needs a complete list of all numbers. Thank you 2600:1700:281:8C00:98CD:A687:100:F4FA for saying what no one else has the courage to say. Peace. Stevebroshar (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not prepare that offline, and add it to Wikipedia once it's complete? Certes (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent plan! —Tamfang (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see -6 ... boo hoo Stevebroshar (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for edits to the list of mathematically significant numbers

1. Remove all numbers put there because of properties base 10. They may be significant, but only because the base we use is base 10, and so are not neccesarily interesting on a deeper mathematical level. This means removing the entries for 142857 and 9814072356, as well as removing the palindromic property of 11 (I don't think 11 deserves and entry for anything it is currently listed for, though it would be interesting to put it down for it's relation to sporadic groups).
2. I think that 7 deserves an entry, as well as 8, but I do not have as strong an opinion on this as on the fact that 5 was ommited.
3. This last entry is more of a joke entry, but we should choose a number (I have in mind 10, 11, or 13) to be the first uninteresting number, and include it in the list, denoted simply as such. Someyearsago-nevermindhowlongprecisely (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

   Definitely 7. Are you joking about 8? No way in heck! And where is 6.5? Stevebroshar (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)