Talk:1729 (anecdote)

message: OK, everyone's had plenty of time to air their opinions. Shall we take a vote?
Poll Closed
:Now, 13:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How are we going to implement the changes? As you can see, the edit war continues after the unprotection. Arvindn 14:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the poll, edit wars are illegitimate; but can't do much more than ask the individuals warring to get a grip of themselves. It seems to me the pages 1729 (number) and Interesting number paradox are stable, though. — Sverdrup 14:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Even the title of an article "Hardy-Ramanujan number" should be disambig. You are correct, that name is often used to refer specifically to 1729 as its role as the first "taxicab number" (least natural number expressible in n ways as sum of 2 cubes. However, the resource "Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences" (one of the most authoritative sources) gives "Hardy-Ramanujan number" as an acceptable alternative term for "taxicub number" in the sense above. I think what Charles was getting at about being hesitant at calling 1729 "the" H-R # is that the whole concept of these sequences, expressing integers as sums of powers, how many ways, the least number in the distinct number of ways, etc., if one that could easily be generalised (and almost certainly has been generalised) into some kind of macroscopic function, depending on different parameters involved, and it would make perfect sense for someone to call these general types of sequences or numbers "H-R #'s". At least, that would seem natural to me. Revolver 23:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: There is plenty of content that can be supplied. The point about 'trivia' is that one can always argue both sides of the 'encyclopedic' debate; that's more-or-less what trivia means. The anecdote isn't trivia. The 'interesting number' thing is (variation on a well-known theme). The 'taxicab number' bit is a minor facet of the Waring problem business, which contains many such aspects. Munging it all together doesn't make for a better encyclopedia, and neither does arguing from a recreational mathematics POV. Charles Matthews 19:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't got articles on every integer of this magnitude. We have an article on 1729 for one reason: it is (this is as you all know, disputed :-) interesting. If we don't include the H-R thing in 1729(number), there is no point to have the article at all. — Sverdrup 21:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: AFAIC the anecdote could go to the Ramanujan page. A page like 1729 (number) sets out to be a node; some such nodes are going to be relative failures, but in wiki terms that's not a big deal. But I don't feel a 'number' page has any 'claim' on material. Charles Matthews 09:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly true, but I have a hard time seeing how an anecdote is worthy of its own encyclopedia article.  Anthony DiPierro 14:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: That is certainly true; but uninformed opinions carry less weight, no? Charles Matthews 09:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to imply that my opinion is uninformed? anthony (see warning) 10:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't deny that there is plenty of content that can be supplied about taxicab numbers.  However, I'd like to see that content actually supplied before creating a page on it. Anthony DiPierro 21:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: That's ridiculous, so, you'd have an article on 7 that talks about prime numbers, Mersenne numbers, lucky numbers, 24-hour convenience stores, and the World Series all in the same article, all because these issues are about the number "7"? Revolver 00:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: What does  have to do with 1729? Anthony DiPierro 19:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote

message: * All in one page: Wik, Jamesday
* One for the number and one for the interesting number thing:— Sverdrup, Anthony DiPierro (first choice), Andre Engels (with the anecdote in the number page)
* Three pages: Arvindn, Anthony DiPierro (second choice), Charles Matthews, Revolver, User:PrimeFan, Ryan_Cable Numerao
* Whatever:
* Other (specify):
**Dysprosia (Leave it as it is now).
** AndrewKepert Delete the lot and let everyone go back to doing something useful.  Yes, I wrote the original version of the page, including the H-R anecdote and the pseudo-paradox (but not "Hair" - I missed that one!).  It was light-hearted, in the spirit of Martin Gardner's account.  The history of the page since then is an embarrassment to all concerned.  I couldn't believe it when it started showing up on disputes, vfd, wik-vs-adp,...  Put a six-month block on the page being created.  Ban all pedians currently on the edit list from ever editing it again.
* The page 'for' 1729 already exists: 1000s.  One separate page on taxicab numbers is called for.  If the "interesting/uninteresting numbers" brainteaser is deemed encyclopedic, it needs a separate page, as it is unrelated. +sj+ 10:58, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
Comments: I think taxicab number can be written and sustained as a third page, however I don't think there is enough content yet to do that. The Hardy-Ramanujan number is 1729, so it seems inappropriate to split that.  Anthony DiPierro 15:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Even the title of an article "Hardy-Ramanujan number" should be disambig. You are correct, that name is often used to refer specifically to 1729 as its role as the first "taxicab number" (least natural number expressible in n ways as sum of 2 cubes. However, the resource "Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences" (one of the most authoritative sources) gives "Hardy-Ramanujan number" as an acceptable alternative term for "taxicub number" in the sense above. I think what Charles was getting at about being hesitant at calling 1729 "the" H-R # is that the whole concept of these sequences, expressing integers as sums of powers, how many ways, the least number in the distinct number of ways, etc., if one that could easily be generalised (and almost certainly has been generalised) into some kind of macroscopic function, depending on different parameters involved, and it would make perfect sense for someone to call these general types of sequences or numbers "H-R #'s". At least, that would seem natural to me. Revolver 23:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: There is plenty of content that can be supplied. The point about 'trivia' is that one can always argue both sides of the 'encyclopedic' debate; that's more-or-less what trivia means. The anecdote isn't trivia. The 'interesting number' thing is (variation on a well-known theme). The 'taxicab number' bit is a minor facet of the Waring problem business, which contains many such aspects. Munging it all together doesn't make for a better encyclopedia, and neither does arguing from a recreational mathematics POV. Charles Matthews 19:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't got articles on every integer of this magnitude. We have an article on 1729 for one reason: it is (this is as you all know, disputed :-) interesting. If we don't include the H-R thing in 1729(number), there is no point to have the article at all. — Sverdrup 21:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: AFAIC the anecdote could go to the Ramanujan page. A page like 1729 (number) sets out to be a node; some such nodes are going to be relative failures, but in wiki terms that's not a big deal. But I don't feel a 'number' page has any 'claim' on material. Charles Matthews 09:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That is certainly true, but I have a hard time seeing how an anecdote is worthy of its own encyclopedia article.  Anthony DiPierro 14:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: That is certainly true; but uninformed opinions carry less weight, no? Charles Matthews 09:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to imply that my opinion is uninformed? anthony (see warning) 10:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't deny that there is plenty of content that can be supplied about taxicab numbers.  However, I'd like to see that content actually supplied before creating a page on it. Anthony DiPierro 21:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: That's ridiculous, so, you'd have an article on 7 that talks about prime numbers, Mersenne numbers, lucky numbers, 24-hour convenience stores, and the World Series all in the same article, all because these issues are about the number "7"? Revolver 00:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: What does  have to do with 1729? Anthony DiPierro 19:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting

message: * 1729 (number): Wik Jamesday — Sverdrup User:PrimeFan (for page on 1729 according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, that is, full discussion of all known mathematical properties of 1729, and selected cultural associations) Numerao
* 1000 (number): for page on all numbers in the 1000s w/o their own page (cf 200 (number)).  Page already exists; 1729 info already on it. +sj+ 11:13, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
** The purpose of listing selected numbers from 1001 - 1999 on the page on 1000 is to see which of them merit their own articles. In my opinion, 1729 merits its own article. PrimeFan 16:35, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Title