Talk:744 (number)

Excessive explanatory notes

@Radlrb: while I didn't reinstate the maintenance tag, I agree with Beland that the use of explanatory notes in this article is excessive. The article is unapproachable and very difficult to read. The explanatory footnotes should be converted to prose, factored to additional articles, or otherwise resolved. Just because other articles have similar problems doesn't mean that it's acceptable for this topic to have the same problems. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how the cleanup banner "damages" the article; it helps editors with interest and expertise in this topic find articles with major work to do, and encourages readers to become editors and help with the cleanup. Putting up a banner is the whole point of having a cleanup template. The excessive nature of the footnotes is a real problem for readability. For sighted readers, it means constantly scrolling up and down or seeing popups to read what may or may not be an important note. For folks using screen readers, it means that most of the article will be read out of context and disjointed from other extents of text. That sounds like a maddeningly difficult way to learn about a topic which is already quite challenging. It does not satisfy Wikipedia's goal of ensuring its content is accessible to people with disabilities. We just need to decide whether most of the text is important enough to put in the main body, suitable for a spin-off detail article, unimportant enough to trim completely, or off-topic enough to move to a linked article. That's not something a non-expert can do. -- Beland (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I will note that it feels excessive (for the most part) if the subject matter or its points are not understood properly; but, if it is, following the information is not as difficult as it may seem, it is mathematical language whose points are built upon and re-referenced throughout (but I agree that now it is at a point where it can be rearranged differently, and matured further). I'll think about what to do, in a manner that makes it more accessible; a spin-off number-theoretical topic on a number article that is specific to a number would be a nice development, possibly. The points listed are needed, and maybe a new article can be generated, given the right ideas. If I can put it in plain language, to put the points across that have been mentioned in another format is not necessarily [easy] to do for the sake of unity in the subject matter, unless it is in a single article (at least the main points).

One solution is to reduce the notes section (i.e. reduce redundant language) and put much of the material into the mainspace, in a manner still that permits the important points to remain exhibited more strongly. I can do that, it'll simply lengthen the main sections of the article more visually (mainly), and would work as long as the flow is sustained and the quality of information remains (whose layout would hopefully be further improved). How does that sound? Radlrb (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That would certainly be a big improvement. -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. I will note on my own train of thoughts, that the style is per se not bad, as it currently stands, nor for the pages of the 24-cell and 600-cell; it is just not a general style that is inclined for a general reader that is not accustomed to the depth of the subject matter (from the notions, and values), and that is true. The thing, so to speak, is that the information here lends itself to complexity very quickly (in this topic), so to humanize it or give it some juice is not always easy. It's very meticulous and also delicate information, so I need some time to create a new architecture different from how it is laid out now, and what might/will follow. Radlrb (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) What is unfortunate is that the accessibility, is not great. I forgot to mention that, so that is something that needs change (however, there may still and maybe I might say, will (Radlrb (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)) exist a large number of notes; each shorter, and maybe with a different overall function). Radlrb (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Radlrb and Mikeblas: It looks like all the explanatory footnotes are only used in the text once. A relatively easily solution would be to simply move the contents of the efns into the main text. If one doesn't seem relevant, just drop it or add it to a more-relevant article, leaving an internal link from this article. Reorganizing the existing text doesn't seem necessary to fix the excessive footnote issue. Though "humanizing" the article to make it more accessible to a general audience would be nice too, that seems like an orthogonal problem. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds like a good approach. Do you need help executing that plan? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beland & @Mikeblas, indeed it's easier than it seems. My idea is to move the notes into the main text as we mentioned, and partition it appropriately with subheadings. I will get around to doing some of it by the end of next week, maybe Friday. Once I do a little work, you can let me know how it reads, and further improve too (please feel free to do some work now if you'd like). We also can add inf. into other articles (e.g. for points relating to 114 and the Mertens function, this could be relayed to the article there, and reiterated here more lightly; etc.) I poured coffee over my computer, so I might need to replace some parts before I can edit again more freely here at home, other than through my phone. In a week's time I should be able to do some meaningful edits. We can work on putting it together here in a manner that reads well and is entirely accessible, since this is also partially experimental (given the depth and amount of information for this number article). Radlrb (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a note that 5-cell, 16-cell, 120-cell, 600-cell, and 744 (number) all have the same problem. In some cases they have exactly the same notes, so if you have gone through one it might be easy for you to spot those on the other articles that duplicate material in other articles and can be dropped in favor of a link. -- Beland (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, for Wikipedia at least (it’s a style, not for here). I am going to start working with more momentum on partitioning inf. properly this coming month for this page; I’ll have a look at the polychora articles too. I’ve been carefully contemplating how to move information, which to keep here and which to move elsewhere. Radlrb (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Umm... History of mathematical notation is not included as excessive footnotes? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I certainly didn't check all the articles on Wikipedia nor even all the math articles to see if they have excessive footnotes; I only clicked around to related articles and checked around to see what Radlrb has been working on. I do find the explanatory footnotes on History of mathematical notation to be excessive, but they were added by Reddi in a major overhaul in July-August 2013 and don't overlap with the content in the above-mentioned articles. Thanks for spotting that problem as well, though; I've added a cleanup tag. -- Beland (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beland I once had an initiative to improve the article, but excessive footnotes had already me scrub my plan. Oh yeah, discussing on its talk page is appropriate way if I'm asking about my plan to improve it ... a bit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the footnotes on History of mathematical notation, so they should no longer be an impediment to your intended improvements. -- Beland (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

(Correction: It was Dc.samizdat who I was initially chatting with and who added the many footnotes to the articles about 4D entities.) -- Beland (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Boldface usage

Boldface should not be used for emphasis and introducing new terms, per MOS:BOLD. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I could change it*, however these integers are being treated as mathematical objects. Radlrb (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ty Mathwriter2718 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Edit: the comment by Radlrb was edited after I left this comment, which makes this comment no longer make sense. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not blackboard bold-equivalent notation, and I'm not aware of any other convention in mathematical notation that would apply to integers. Many integers in the article are not bolded, so I've removed the bolding (on integers and when I encountered it on random parentheses and multiplication signs and radical symbols and page numbers). There was also over-bolding of words, some of which I turned into links.

I also saw some * at the beginning of footnotes, immediately preceding some integers. Are these part of some mathematical notation? If they are merely there to indicate a footnote, they are redundant to the symbols automatically added, and could also be removed.

There were also some bolded letters and I was unsure if these actually were blackboard bold-equivalent; if not, these should be de-bolded to make that clear. -- Beland (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

It is common in math to <em> (emphasize) new instances/definitions of important terms. Usually in math emphasize translates to italics, but sometimes it translates to bold. In math Wikipedia, bold is often used for emphasize. I used to use bold for this purpose until very recently when someone told me about MOS:BOLD. It seems like we are supposed to use italics for this purpose. I left my first comment because I assumed this article was using bold for that purpose, though I could have been wrong. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am at a loss for words.

I have only question, why? This article is a large collection of irrelevant factoids that don't mean anything and are completely inaccessible. For now, I have moved all of this to Talk:744 (number)/Factoids for Assessment, but as far as I can tell, being the "second-smallest magic constant for a 6 × 6 magic square", is not really WP:DUE nor is anything else in this giant page. I would like to note that virtually all of the contributions here were added by one editor who, in my opinion has serious issues determining what is WP:DUE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

The resulting article is so short, I wonder if now it can just be merged into 700 (number)#740s? -- Beland (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Probably, the only reason for keeping it might be the connection to the j-invariant, and that's pretty tenuous. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've merged and redirected; feel free to restore the article and backlink if there are enough interesting factoids. -- Beland (talk) 22:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There aren't, but it's been restored anyway.

Entire chunks of the page are off-topic. It says things like 744 is the 183rd semiperfect number and then goes on to talk about 183 instead of 744. Or it'll say 960 is the thirty-first Jordan–Pólya number completely out of the blue and talk about 960 for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

QuicoleJR, per your claims of no consensus on your reveert. The reverting editors have not really engaged on the talk page, so I'm not sure if it is accurate to say there is no consensus here. What are your thoughts on the material? Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that ping worked. @QuicoleJR: I'm willing to say that this is the most bizarre mathematics article I have seen here outside of pure crankery that has been deleted. It includes a few things that ought to be said, many more things that are at best borderline, and stretches of what I can only call numerical free-association. It uses the appearance of 744 in some interesting and deep mathematics (Monstrous moonshine) as an excuse to expound at length upon that topic in a way that is incomprehensible to people who don't already know the material. Plenty of other numbers show up in Monstrous moonshine: 24 springs to mind, as does 196,883. Lengthy explanations of things that mathematicians don't even see until graduate school belong in the articles on those topics, not here. It's rather like if someone took the fact that there are currently 50 states in the United States and tried to write a history of the United States in the article 50 (number). XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the passages on 183. I trimmed most of the "Almost integer" section because it seemed to wander off topic. I assume this is what was meant by the reference to monstrous moonshine.

Several editors have objected to the mass removal of all but 1 or 2 facts on several integer articles, mostly on the grounds they are unconvinced such removal carefully considered all the existing material piece by piece. Perhaps if we go more slowly and give explicit reasons for each removal there will be more support and it will be more clear which material, if any, is actually disputed.

I'm thinking we can drop everything that obviously doesn't belong in this article (e.g. the stuff that's wildly off topic) and then pause until Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines has stabilized. After that we'd be able to do a final trim where we distinguish between interesting and uninteresting on-topic facts. I will do a bit of trimming now. -- Beland (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The sections about lattices are similarly bad. XOR'easter (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't know enough about the topic to form an opinion on this article. WP:BLAR says that if it is contested, issues should be discussed, and if that fails some form of dispute resolution should be used, such as AFD. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Trimmed lattice sections and a bunch of other stuff. The article is now about half its previous size; I'm taking a pause to water plants and paint in the kitchen and let folks eyeball the remainder for a bit. -- Beland (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Beland and XOR'easter: I came here to say exactly what QuicoleJR said. The usual venue for a contested redirect is WP:AFD with a recommendation for delete and redirect.Polyamorph (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the forum, I expect some editors will still object to an all-or-nothing truncation on the grounds we should more carefully consider the content piece by piece.

I think it would address that objection, and also be a useful exercise, for the math experts to go through this article and pull out anything that conflicts with Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines, piece by piece, and give the specific rule in the edit summary. It would be a good test of the proposed guidelines, to make sure that the consequences of it are what is intended by a consensus of editors.

I did a bit of that just now, and the article is down to a quarter of the size from when it was being repeatedly deleted and restored. At the end of being put through that wringer, the answer to the question of "redirect or keep" should be pretty obvious based on the size of the remaining consensus text. -- Beland (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why you have been taking out some of the information recently, including the fact that 456 is the only number to have an aliquot sum of 744 (present as dimensions in VOA's of central charge of 24, if you want a use of that number, however we don't need to mention that, just showing you that it exists). Also, φ(σ(744)) = 744 is the sixth such number, why removie this? Part of the section on Robin's theorem can remain, or be argely reduced I feel. I was going to work through it and clean it up after getting much needed sleep. I.e., that 744 divides the sum of divisors of the largest member in the sequence of Robin's theorem (referenced as well). We don't have to mass delete, we can keep select points in here, I'm concerned with indiscriminate mass removals without seeking consensus first, as the case with Allan Nonymous. Your removals are much more significant than going line-by-line. Radlrb (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

For each removal I've done, I've noted in the edit summary the exact reason, usually pointing to a specific rule in the proposed guidelines. If you think I've applied the guidelines incorrectly, feel free to explain how; they might need to be clarified. If you fundamentally disagree with the guidelines, you should make a comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#A concrete proposal right now. If you don't give a rationale for amendment, then it's possible in a few days, the current text will be declared as having consensus.

If no one including you is disputing the rules I'm pointing to, I don't see any point in restoring text that no one wants for a few days. If you do dispute the guidelines supporting a specific removal, I'm happy to keep the disputed text around until that question is resolved. Such discussions are healthy. As I mentioned above, I intentionally made these removals before the guidelines were finalized so that any editor (such as yourself) that disagrees with the consequences would have a concrete example you could bring to the attention of the other editors before everyone walks away and sets the guidelines in soft concrete. Not every possibility has necessarily been foreseen and taken into consideration. -- Beland (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, these guidelines being written at the Numbers Project page have some serious concerns, including avoiding figurate numbers, ignoring aliquot parts, sums of divisors, and so forth, without any explicit explanation as to why, and I'm seeing blind agreements to this without explanation for their validity. I'll speak on it there directly, but these recent edits should not be grounds for removal here, as they have not yet reached consensus, and are still in the works. Radlrb (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Figurate numbers more than qualify as routine. Any number n, is the first n-1-gonal number, for example. Facts about figurate numbers and partitions comfortably qualify as routine. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Explain to me "routine", please. Not every number is part of a specific family of an n-gonal number. I.e. 36 is not a pentagonal number, however 35 is (the fifth). Radlrb (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There are an infinite number of families of n-gonal numbers, meaning it's not very hard to find at least one (and usually quite a lot of) figurate numbers to which any number belongs to. It's a little like saying a number is a multiple of 5, or 3, or 10, or 7, which would be routine facts, except the problem is worse, because we can also have multiple dimensions, or decide to center the number. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with most of this, and I don't think its contradictory when thinking that it is worthwhile to point out that a give n number is part of multiple polygonal numbers; the idea is to cite the polygonal numbers that a given number is most prominently part of. Same goes with other like sequences that might be "routine", such as aliquot parts, sums of divisors, Euler totients, etc. The idea is, that from these latter ones, there are only a finite number that will satisfy them (especially those that have singular, or two solutions); and I think it is worthwhile to point that out, especially if an important number in these sequences pops up: like, 144 is the sum of the divisors of 70 (both important in the context of the Leech lattice, note that for the page in 144 this can be moved elsewhere and disjointed so that it does not appear as juxtaposed SYNTH). What do you think? Radlrb (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the part on Robin's theorem was alright to be removed. I misremembered the table in the reference, and only 240 is seen as having a sod of 744, the sod of 5040 is divisible by 744 and of interest clearly in the sense that I was writing it, however it is synth if we talk about it. I think a little more on F4 can remain though, so I will go ahead and see what was taken out. Else, it seems the article is reaching its final WP:DUE state here shortly. Radlrb (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"It's rather like if someone took the fact that there are currently 50 states in the United States and tried to write a history of the United States in the article 50 (number)". Not really, as you know, these associations function as maps between numbers as mathematical objects (we know, you know what I mean by this). Yet, we will be removing all of these WP:UNDUE extensions, as has been agreed. I will work to remove them as well. Radlrb (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not undo corrections to phrasing as you did here. XOR'easter (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, it came from the revert I did from Beland, I should have been more careful. Thank you for fixing it once more. Radlrb (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am pretty adamant that this is misguided. The text does absolutely nothing to make the subject matter accessible; anyone who finds language like "conformal field theories of holomorphic VOAs of weight one" to be "accessible" is already an expert. Nor does the appearance of 744 in a table of results make its inclusion here due, particularly when the text of the source provides no commentary to underline its significance. Two editors have removed this specifically (see here), so the consensus so far is against it, and the onus is on you to provide a rationale that persuades otherwise before restoring it.

I also think that none of this is "worth mentioning". This article is about 744, not 120 or the fact that 120 is 5 factorial. XOR'easter (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think just the mention is good enough (one of the people that removed it admitted that they do not know enough about the subject matter). I will find a better source, however, note that this is still fresh information so to speak, and it is of consequence in that, per Griess' own commentary, the best way to understand F1 is through VOA's, and 744 is present not only in F1, but here as well, in dimensional representations. Just let it stand for now, I urge you, it really is one of the higher "limits", so to speak, of the appearance of 744 in group theory and associated concepts. Radlrb (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The sentiment among mathematicians that the best way to understand the Monster group is through VOAs should be described in the articles Monster group and vertex operator algebra, not crammed into an incomprehensible digression here. Not every appearance of 744 in a group-theory paper is WP:DUE. XOR'easter (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This is obviously relevant, though, it is the number 744 itself nearly atop the list of VOA's with central charge of 24, the central concept in many conformation field theories. It is not a digression since we are already talking about the j-invariant and moonshine theory. Radlrb (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

So, write a review article saying so and get it published in a refereed journal, or write a monograph about vertex operator algebras and get it published by a university press. Until then, that's just your personal opinion, with nothing suitable for Wikipedia's purposes to back it up. Due weight is determined by the weight given by reliable sources, not you or I saying "hey, it's neat that that number appears there". XOR'easter (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh this is not personal opinion.you're might be unaware of the subject matter it seems. Radlrb (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Has McKay commented on this specific appearance of 744 among this list of dimensionalities? Terry Gannon? Richard Borcherds? Yang-Hui He? Find a secondary source that talks about this appearance of 744, how it relates to other appearances of 744, and why that relation is important. Then we can discuss how to write about it in an accessible way. ("The Leech lattice is... The deep holes in the Leech lattice are... Associated to each deep hole, one can construct...") XOR'easter (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe Richard Borchers might have, I know many string-theorists have mentioned it multiple times, as well as by Griess in summary texts. I just need to find it, and if I remembered incorrectly, as I have been saying, in good faith I will remove it or otherwise support the removal. Until then, this mention itself is enough, we don't need to super-highlight it either. A single sentence would do somewhere else in the article. Radlrb (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Radlrb, please avoid implying that other editors are stupid. Personal insults like that a.) tend to make people less cooperative, b.) are often based on the incorrect assumption that any knowledgeable person would agree with the speaker (discounting the common case of simple disagreement), and c.) tend to make the speaker appear as if they have run out of good, rational arguments. -- Beland (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does he think then that it is my own "personal opinion". He is assuming the same thing you are accusing me of. But I agree, I'm just getting frustrated again at the pointed passive-aggressive style against me, much in line with how JBL reacted below to my comment, yet I see no mention of you calling him out like you called me out. Radlrb (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You have repeatedly made statements along the lines of It seems to be "nice" that 744 holds these properties — arguing for the inclusion of various factoids based on, to be blunt, aesthetics. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, for the more SYNTHETIC inclusion of larger extensions, however for this one, it is harmless.; take it out then, I frankly don't mind. Radlrb (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

XOR'easter is not calling you stupid. They are pointing to a lack of sources mentioning the connections you are making, which may mean those connections run afoul of policies like Wikipedia:No original research. Even Nobel Prize winners aren't allowed to publish their ideas on Wikipedia first. -- Beland (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I took it as an insult. You're telling me my feelings don't matter, and that your way of looking at it is the only valid one? I said that these points are relevant (I should have specified, from sourcing, not just from me). He was the one who said that it is (presumably) my opinion, without asking first if it is from others' work; only afterward did he ask. Radlrb (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course your feelings matter; no one editing here should feel insulted.

I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. If someone on the street said "Pluto is a planet!" and someone else said "well that's your opinion", that would rightly be interpreted as dismissing the statement as either factually incorrect or something the speaker disagrees with. But I don't think that's how the above was meant. Here on Wikipedia, we have to distinguish between ideas that come from individual editors vs. reliable published sources. That's the only way we can decide if content violates the "no original research" policy. Is something important because published sources find it important, or is it only important in the personal opinion of an editor or two? -- Beland (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"So, write a review article saying so and get it published in a refereed journal, or write a monograph about vertex operator algebras and get it published by a university press. Until then, that's just your personal opinion, with nothing suitable for Wikipedia's purposes to back it up" is quite the personal attack, going to the extent of saying basically "go write it up, then come here and include it". It is without saying that this was a comment aimed at insulting me. Of course I am not going to write an article on it right now, publish it, to then include its contents here. Radlrb (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No, that was not a comment aimed at insulting you. It was merely my attempt to explain how policy applies in circumstances like these. As Beland said, we have to distinguish between ideas that come from individual editors vs. reliable published sources.

Look, just speaking for myself, I personally find instances where the same number appears in different calculations to be charming. I look at them and wonder if there's a new McKay-style observation to be made. But speculating about such phenomena, or gathering number factoids together to hint at them, is not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is another use of 744 with regard to classifications of three-dimensional VOA's as irreducible representations of modular groups, and associated specific fibres: 1 (page 27, from here). There is even more relevant inf. elsewhere that can be used to substantiate VOAs and their relationship with 744. I'll do work on this later tonight if I have the time, or latest tomorrow. Radlrb (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

If 744 just appears in a single expression as the bound in an inequality, that's not significant coverage of the number itself in that context. XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Why does it need to appear more than once? It is clearly of consequence in the classification points of bounds there. The author does not need to mention it more than once, if he so chose. Radlrb (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

But if they choose to say very little about it (e.g., not explicitly tying it to other appearances of the number), then we have by policy very little that we can say about it. Moreover, it means that the emphasis is not on the number, but on the topic in which the number arises, meaning that the article on the number is probably the wrong place to be going into depth. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

This bound is not trivial, on fibres that are defined by representations of modular groups. Alright, if I don't get a better source, then we don't need to include it... Radlrb (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The latter point you mentioned, I believe is "nice" to include and DUE since 744 = 4! + 6! and the arithmetic means of its divisors is 5!. It seems to be "nice" that 744 holds these properties. Any other people agree? I am okay with removing it if it is not in consensus to keep. Radlrb (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh good lord. JBL (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

How would you evaluate that against Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines? -- Beland (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Listen, there are many points that can be included that will look colorful. Are we against that? I believe as a mathematician, that it is fruitful and useful, as many have pointed out; and people are also genuine interested in this. 2 editors have already pointed to this. The "Oh good lord" doesn't help, JBL (and it is a type of personal attack).are you just going to meander in the background or do actual meaningful work here? You SEE how much I am removing and adhering to the good-faith edits. Don't add salt, please. Radlrb (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

JBL could definitely have put that in a more diplomatic and respectful way. I would just take their comment as strong disapproval for your proposal. Perhaps they are frustrated at how far apart your and their ideas are about the scope of this type of article. But getting back to the actual content, I ask again, how would you evaluate your proposal against Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers/Guidelines? That would probably give you a good idea of how close to or far from the prevailing opinion this proposal is. -- Beland (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Then I would have told him so "off the bat", as you told me, and not wait for me to ask your opinion on the matter (if you will be continuing to point things out like this). It makes it seem like you are much more willing to call me out, than the rest. Per the guidelines as they stand, it is not enough, however these are still in the works. It seems this type of point would not survive unless its arithmetic mean of divisors were the first to be 120 (it is instead the 11th of 13 such numbers). If it were the smallest or second smallest, or largest or penultimate, then I would include it. Radlrb (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I did let JBL know their comment wasn't the most helpful; that was most of the point of me mentioning it above, in addition to being apologetic to you about it. I tried not to make a big deal about it, because I want to make actual forward progress and keep the focus on the content.

Speaking of content, then it sounds like the alternative are either to accept "no inclusion" for this tidbit, or propose a change to the guidelines before they are finalized. -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand you did, it just happened to occur after I brought it up, not prior (you called me out above immediately following my comment, instead). These things matter when you are "vigilating" behavior between editors, I am sure you understand this; else, this hurts the very process of impartiality and seeking to collectively edit appropriately and in collaborative style. Thank you, Beland, for performing this valuable task.

For now, the point can be removed then, which I did do. Radlrb (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

How's the article looking now?

All WP:SYNTH has been taken away, I believe, leaving (I think), only WP:DUE points. I think the inclusion on the dimensionality 744 for VOA's is very important, and almost all authors include it in its tables of 71 VOAs with central charge of 24 (I can list more references, I will be busy for most of the rest of today, however, so please be patient with me). Radlrb (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot more to go. For one, the "almost integers" section seems to be NOFFTOPIC (especially since the cite is to a "pop-sci" book). Base specific properties are always NROUTINE, and Convolution of Fibonacci numbers is also (the sources don't help here, as they just cover the concept). φ(n) and σ(n) are also NROUTINE, (I can compute the Euler Totient of any number, or the sum of its divisors, hence NROUTINE. "The number partitions of the square of seven (49) into prime parts is 744." is about to go into the example book for why partitions are NROUTINE. A "selfie number" is both NNOPAGE and NOTOEIS, as are most of the remaining facts. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I only agree with removing the last part mainly. Base-specific properties could be removed, tje rest I rather keep. I don't agree with taking the rest out because of this sudden NROUTINE thing, I have to read more into it. Radlrb (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The idea behind NROUTINE, is that we should remove facts that 1. can be rephrased to be about essentially about any number, 2. have no non-OEIS sourcing as to being important and 3. are not a select few simple and helpful facts. Otherwise, we could stuff number articles with small variations on these sorts of facts until the cows come home. I could list the totients of every number, or numbers with that totient, or the number that is the nth term of a sequence or its sum-of-divisors of a number or a number whose sum of divisors is n, and could come up with hundreds of sets of partitions of which there are exactly n of, etc. ad infinitum. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I agree. My idea I think, is that we can include these basic facts for every number, in a different section, as more or less the equivalent of their "atomic numbers", or the sort so to speak. What do you think? Would you agree with including special cases of singular cases of aliquot parts equivalent with a given number n, or sums of divisiors where only one number has an sod equal to n? I feel it's noteworthy, and a good compromise of our views, since I think we both have validity in our arguments (both sides of it shared by others, from our discussion group possibly and outside for sure, from editors who have included this). Radlrb (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If you want to discuss guideline proposals, I would suggest you post them in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help remove WP:CRUFT on number articles!. They would probably be appreciated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. Radlrb (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)