Talk:Round number
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Citation needed for the fact that 1024 is hexadecimal 400?
[edit]Why does a calculable value need a citation? 135.26.8.175 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it is strange to ask for a reference for this and have omitted the
{{cn}}tag, with apologies to User:GermanJoe who added it originally. It seems reasonable to think of the link hexadecimal as sufficient here. Scwarebang (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)- @Scwarebang:. Thanks for the ping, the cn was not meant for the trivial calculation, but for the paragraph as a whole - and may have been placed a bit confusing. It would be nice to have a source to verify, that such an extended informal definition of "round number" is actually used in all mentioned numbering systems (either in common usage or by mathematicians). Most sources will probably focus on decimal "round numbers" though. But the issue is minor, so no problem with removing the old tag. GermanJoe (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- @GermanJoe: Oh! Thanks for clarifying; that makes sense now. Like you, I doubt that either lay or mathematical usage supports the claim you were questioning. But I didn't really think of it as a claim at all. Instead, the purpose of that text seems to have been merely to point out the fragility of the concept of roundness...that it depends on the numbering system you use. It said "can also be considered", which is a construction that people use because we no longer have the subjunctive mood in English. (On the other hand, I just now stumbled onto the article on strictly non-palindromic numbers, which makes me think that someone somewhere might have defined a "strictly non-round number" that is not round in any numbering system over some range of bases. Those crazy mathematicians, am I right?) Scwarebang (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Scwarebang:. Thanks for the ping, the cn was not meant for the trivial calculation, but for the paragraph as a whole - and may have been placed a bit confusing. It would be nice to have a source to verify, that such an extended informal definition of "round number" is actually used in all mentioned numbering systems (either in common usage or by mathematicians). Most sources will probably focus on decimal "round numbers" though. But the issue is minor, so no problem with removing the old tag. GermanJoe (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Second paragraph
[edit]The second paragraph is poorly written, with a misspelling, a fundamental misstatement, non-sequiturs, an incorrect definition, misplaced commas and scare quotes, and a missing citation. The plural of 'zero' is 'zeros', not 'zeroes'. A number ending in the digit 5 can be considered rounder than one ending in another non-zero digit, but it would not be rounder than one ending in zero. The first sentence says that round number is an integer, but the third gives a decimal fraction as an example. I have made several corrections and added some citations on 9 June 2016.
Scwarebang (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
15th birthday
[edit]Is a 15th birthday really more celebrated than any other? In the US, 13, 16, 18, and 21 are the important ones. 77.46.59.60 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- You are right that 13, 16, 18, and 21 are more celebrated in the US than the 15th birthday.
- However, this article currently never mentions the 15th birthday, only the 50th birthday ("a fiftieth birthday"), which in my experience *is* celebrated far more than any other birthday in the range 26 to 74.
- How can we make this article better?
- --DavidCary (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)