Talk:10,000,000

Powers of numbers vs. Keith numbers

Non-logged in user 213.37.6.106 has complained that his additions about powers of numbers (e.g., 15^6) have been reverted. The fact that the list includes Keith numbers appears nonsensical to him.

My criterion is that powers of primes are notable. Not everyone from WP:NUM might agree with me on this though. In any case, Keith numbers are much rarer than powers of primes or even primes themselves. PrimeFan 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

At least you're aware of your own bias. But your bias is understandable: limiting to powers of primes cuts down on clutter. Some composite powers are interesting, however, and writing them, as say, 4^2 = 2^4 shows quite clearly why they're interesting. However, 15^6 = 225^3 = 3375^2, after the first equal sign, my interest wanes. Maybe as a compromise we could just have 15^6 and let those who care figure out the other roots. I think we should look at each of these on a case by case basis. Anton Mravcek 21:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your interest wanes, mine not. Because what makes powers such as this especially interesting is precisely the fact that they are simultaneously the powers of different numbers. If you just keep the 15^6 part and delete the other two, you're actually failing to mention one of the most notable aspects of that power. And the numbers 225 and 3375 are themselves powers (the square and cube of 15), i.e. they are notable numbers, not just some random numbers. BTW, what "clutter" are you talking about? With all my additions the list is still reduced to some sixty numbers, out of ninety million—still a ridiculously small selection from such a vast range. And if the objective is to come up with an extremely reduced list (which I see no reason nor purpose for), then definitely things like Keith numbers are the ones that should be dropped from the list the first, because their concept is completely trivial and inconsequential, a merely recreational construct completely dependent on the use of a certain base, unlike powers which are a serious mathematical concept. 213.37.6.106 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agreee wit Anton's compromise. show just one power of the composite, the one whit teh biggest exponent. if it deserves its own article, then put in all the other ones. Numerao 21:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd accept that, provided that the IP is banned from this article, as he'll continue to insert nonsense. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so if someone has a different criterion than yours, then it seems you consider yourself the supreme judge to dictate that it's nonsense and they should be banned. What a constructive and civil attitude, apart from incredibly arrogant. What about banning you, as you'll continue to revert without providing any argumentation to support your view? I did provide quite a few points to support mine in the referenced comment at PrimeFan's talk page, to which you have so far refused to provide any counter-argument. 213.37.6.106 02:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And you have neglected to even comment on PrimeFan's advice to you: that if you're going to be reverting, you should be logged in. For this reason alone I'm willing to side with Arthur. I'm not even looking at his impeccable math credentials right now. Anton Mravcek 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What? To start with, I did answer and give a reason for that, and in any case that is in no way a reason (where on Earth is the Wikipedia policy stating that unlogged contributors have no right to revert?), let alone mentioning someone's "impeccable credentials" as a supposed argument (a well-known logical fallacy). Why don't you or him provide, at last, some counter-arguments to the ones I offered there? Uaxuctum 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy to that, but there is an unwritten hierarchy about what kind of user most of us are likelier to revert right off the bat. PrimeFan 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

1. A user not logged in.
2. A logged in user with no user page.
3. A logged in user with a user page.
4. A logged in user we know and trust.

Which is based on prejudiced assumptions, and does not constitute any kind of valid argument to refute that user's argumentation, let alone the fact that reverting an anonymous user's contribution on first sight, just because it was anonymous, is a completely unacceptable behaviour which violates stated Wikipedia policies such as Assume good faith. The reversion of someone else's contribution has to be based on good reasons and arguments, not on assumptions, prejudices or personal tastes and dislikes, an approach which Mr. Rubin repeatedly refused to take, claiming "non-notability" and "incorrectness" from an a priori standpoint, refusing to reply to my reasoning for their notability, apparently considering his own personal opinion as an authoritative and definitive source on what constitutes notability and correctness. Uaxuctum 03:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, you're becoming a user we know and trust. Your first draft for the article on sqrt(5) was quite thoughtful and informative.

But getting back to the issue at hand: What do you think of Anton's proposed compromise of only including one power for "guest" numbers (e.g., 3008 in a list for 3000)? (For numbers that get their own articles we can probably agree that all applicable powers should be listed). PrimeFan 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm... to PrimeFan he claimed to be User:Uaxuctum but that he doesn't always feel like logging in. Anton Mravcek 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes 5.195.103.110 (talk) 06:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Page rationale per WP:NUM

This is the page to jot down interesting facts about 8-digit numbers. If enough (at least three) interesting facts are gathered about a particular 8-digit number, it could possibly warrant its own article. PrimeFan 19:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move. —Mets501 (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

10000000 (number) to ten million. Similar to how 1000000 (number) was moved to million, this article should be at ten million. See also similar proposal for hundred million and billion. Voortle 00:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support per my reasons above. Voortle 00:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral at this time. Two years ago I voted to keep all the number articles at their word names, (e.g., the article on 40 at forty), but the majority at that time chose to move them to where they're now (e.g., 40 (number)). Even though I still don't like that, I think maybe I like the idea of moving all these again even less. PrimeFan 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. "million" is about the same length as "1000000", but "ten million" is a bit longer than "10000000". (I opposed the first move to "million", for what it's worth, and I still oppose this move.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Notability for numbers

The following has been copied over from PrimeFan's talk page as it is relevant to the discussion here. Anton Mravcek 19:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the reason why only the powers of primes should be considered notable for selection? Is a power of 5 or a power of 7 any more notable than a power of 4, a power of 6 or a power of 8? Is a power of 11 or a power of 13 more notable than a power of an eminently practical number like the dozen (a number of highly unusual properties)? Or a power of 17 or a power of 19 more notable than a power of the score, that is, than a vigesimal power (very prominent for vigesimal-based cultures/languages like those from Mesoamerica)? Sorry to say this, considering you are a fan of primes, but prime numbers (a.k.a. "rigid numbers") are interesting mostly in theory (because of their being "building blocks" for other numbers) and their importance has been rather overrated, because except for the first few of them (2, 3, 5, 7), they are of very limited value in real life since their minimal divisibility makes them particularly inconvenient for many practical purposes. My criterion for notability is that the selected numbers are powers of small numbers (prime or not), i.e. powers of "everyday" numbers (say, in the range 1-100, or else in the range 1-60 for a non-decimal-biased limit), or powers of particularly special higher numbers such as the powers of highly composite numbers like 360 (highly composites, a.k.a. "versatile numbers", are very rare, unlike primes, and their exceptional, relatively-maximal divisibility places them at a diametrically opposed side from the minimal divisibility of primes). Except for squares and cubes, which are relatively abundant and thus not particularly notable when their square or cube root is a large non-notable number, there aren't at all so many other powers (fifth or sixth or seventh powers) in the long range from 10000001 to 99999999; so such powers are notable if only for their extreme relative rarity (we are talking about only some thirty numbers out of almost ninety million; that's 0.00003% of them), and especially when (as in the case of sixth powers) they are simultaneously the powers of several different numbers (a not very usual property which makes this kind of powers particularly notable). BTW, I already have an account (User:Uaxuctum), but most of the time I cannot be bothered to log in (especially for supposedly uncontroversial edits such as adding to a list of mathematical facts), and I don't find it appropriate to discuss one of my edits under a different identifier than the one with which I initially happened to make it, because I think it would only confuse casual readers. 213.37.6.106 00:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would agree that that's uncontroversial. But if you find yourself reverting, it's better to log in, because in a revert war it makes it that easier to side with the logged in user and dismiss the non-logged in user as a vandal.

For this particular issue, please take it up, logged in, at the relevant article talk page and/or at the WP:NUM talk page. PrimeFan 23:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

---

10000000 (number) → 10,000,000 – Hard to tell how many zeroes are in the present title, also unnecessary (number) dab. See 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000. Fish567 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:DIGITS, we are expected to use commas to delimit the thousands in any number equal to or greater than 10,000 — it's only optional if there's just one digit sitting above the hundreds place, and not if there are two or more. I can easily identify the proposed title as "ten million", but I can't tell just by looking at it, without having to manually count and calculate the zeros in my head to figure it out, whether the existing title is one, ten or one hundred million. Admittedly I don't math so good sometimes, but millions of other people in the world can also say the same thing — so we optimize digits for clarity to all users. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Bearcat. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support removal of (number) as an Unnecessary disambiguator. No opinion on the commas. Pppery 18:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support commas and removal of (number) disambiguator. Reidgreg (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support ditto. Dhrm77 (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2017 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:300 (number) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Trivial asides

IPs keep adding the aside "(there is no smaller number divisible by the numbers from 1 to 17 since any number divisible by 2 and 9 must be divisible by 18)" to the description "smallest number divisible by the numbers from 1 to 18": [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I think this is a trivially obvious observation that does not need to be mentioned. Unless we reach a concensus here to include it it should stay out.

Similarly, the same IPs have been repeatedly attempting to add the equally trivially obvious asides

• "(there is no smaller number divisible by the numbers from 1 to 20 since any number divisible by 3 and 7 must be divisible by 21 and any number divisible by 2 and 11 must be divisible by 22)" to the description "smallest number divisible by the numbers from 1 to 22" for 232,792,560 in 100,000,000 [6]
• "(there is no smaller number divisible by the numbers from 1 to 23 since any number divisible by 3 and 8 must be divisible by 24)" to the description smallest number divisible by the numbers from 1 to 24" for 5,354,228,880 in 1,000,000,000 [7] Meters (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The SPA IP behind this has been blocked more than once but continues. Meters (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)