Talk:64 (number)

message: A Google search for "64 incident" yields mostly unrelated results. The results that do mention Tianamen are for this Wikipedia article. I also tried "64 tianamen" and that gave similar results. Anton Mravcek 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a growing problem in Wikipedia. I've found other "facts" that were spread throughout the web, but the original source was always Wikipedia! --Grouse 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 incident? 

message: From the Article:
It is also the number of days a reoccurance took place over the summer of 2005 to a then 13 yr old girl.
:That was in the astronomy section. It doesn't sound relevant to astronomy so I removed it. PrimeFan 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this right? 

message: Noting that 2^6 = 4^3 = 8^2, is it just a little interesting that 2*4*8 = 64 ? Is there any other number with this property? -- Toksyuryel talk | contrib  18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you state this property algebraically? (Something like n = x^2 + y^3 ... etc.) PrimeFan 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well so far 64 is the only number I know to have this property... where the number is a product of all of its roots. If we could find more numbers perhaps we could find a pattern for it (like we have something of a pattern for perfect numbers) -- Toksyuryel talk | contrib  07:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every number is a product of all its prime roots. This is an inherent property of all numbers. So 8 = 4*2, 16=8*2 or 4*4 or 16*1, ect. Only prime numbers are products of all their roots, with a few exceptions (8 = 4*2*1, 6=3*2*1, 14 = 7*2*1, 21 = 7*3*1, ect.). Titanium Dragon 07:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are factors, not roots. -- Toksyuryel talk | contrib  20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any 6th power of a number which is not a perfect power.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

text: In general, a number is the product of all of its nontrivial roots if it can be written as , where  is a non-power and  is a perfect number.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interesting observation about 64 

message: --GravityTalk 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Resource 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.ngcic.org/
** In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:01:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
** In 52 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:05:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
--JeffGBot (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros1-175.html
** In 138 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:57:59, 404 Not Found
** In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:24, 404 Not Found
** In 159 (number) on 2011-06-01 18:16:47, 404 Not Found
** In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:03:15, 404 Not Found
** In 53 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:09:35, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEsaros/LEsaros1-175.html
** In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:07:31, 404 Not Found
** In 1520s BC on 2011-05-23 03:34:42, 404 Not Found
** In 1630s BC on 2011-05-25 01:51:51, 404 Not Found
** In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:15, 404 Not Found
** In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:24, 404 Not Found
** In 1409–1400 BC on 2011-06-01 15:26:12, 404 Not Found
** In 159 (number) on 2011-06-01 18:16:53, 404 Not Found
** In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:03:06, 404 Not Found
** In 53 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:09:29, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 64 (number). 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090609170451/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros1-175.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros1-175.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Pp20VQlI?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Feclipse%2FLEsaros%2FLEsaros1-175.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEsaros/LEsaros1-175.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't The 64,000 Dollar Question be listed under 64,000 rather than 64? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  $64,000 question  

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles.  Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bingo names -

message: What is a "stack", and why should we care it is limited to 64?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Minecraft]] 

message: "Number of shares in a ship or boat under British Registry owing to its divisibility by 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 32".
No source is quoted and I have been unable to verify this sentence. Sources suggest to me that the 64 shares can be split in any number of ways and has nothing to do with the divisibility in the text. Also, 64 is not divisible by 6. Bestendeavors (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I removed it as unreferenced trivia. It’s not the only piece of trivia on this page. More generally, I have been contemplating a systematic weeding of trivia in the number articles. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: By the end of the year maybe we should consider removing almost all trivia from number articles, so as to start 2024 with a fresh cleanse, number-article-wise. Radlrb (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of shares in a ship or boat under British Registry...