Talk:73 (number)

message: There is only one entry under "in popular culture", but many of the listings under "in other fields" are pop-culture-related. Should they be moved?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.85.28 (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Who really cares? What would moving them do for the world? Anything?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.252.136 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize? 

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) 21:04, 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) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: This statement is incorrect. The actual rhythmic sequence is: -- ..- ...- .- which in Morse Code spells MUVA.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.252.136 (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The rhythmic clapping at sporting events that precedes “Let’s Go!”' 

message: *Include in this article only - There already exists a very low bar for inclusion in this article. It is mostly a collection of trivia about the number 73. So you either allow this here or remove half of the existing content, and I'm for the former. Agree with PizzaMan, disagree with Arthur Rubin: there is no inherent requirement for equal notability between the two articles. As a side comment, there are far more significant things to argue about at Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (response to Mandruss' opinion below in the discussion section). PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Run your google query incognito and you get very different results (google is slanting its results because it knows you like BBT). The #2 hit is Sheldon, but thats the only BBT hit in the next several pages. For images, the "tshirt" image doesnt show up until #12 and #22. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A relevant point, so I did that and all results on the first page except this wp page are related to or mention TBBT. Perhaps google results are also ip based? Or perhaps if anyone cares about 73 it's mostly because of TBBT. Either way, Aussielegend had a good point that we should try to keep the survey section clean and have discussion below. Shall we move this to the discussion section?PizzaMan (♨♨) 18:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

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) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bingo names -

message: @Radlrb As I had written in my edit summary previously: the fact that the number 73 is a permutable prime has little if anything to do with it being a Sheldon Prime. If you look into the proof attached, you'll discover that they only ever talk about it being reversible, as in you can write the number back to front. And that's what they prove for all other numbers too. It is not at all useful to link the section 'permutable', because that is a different property. JackTheSecond (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is understood, I am placing it as a matter-of-fact that these two numbers are simultaneously part of the sequence of permutable primes [which is why I said specifically this time, in likeness]. Radlrb (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

text: This being said, it also has much to do with it, in the sense that it first needs to be a permutable prime before being considered a Sheldon prime, as part of the definition is that both permutation of its digits yield prime numbers whose indexes are themself permutation of their digits (though not prime, here, that would be a yet-added property that these two numbers do not contain), so including this information is essentially already rooted in the point at hand. Radlrb (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you're misunderstanding Permutable primes a little bit. A prime being permutable is a stronger property than is being defined in this case in that digits need to be able to take any other digits' position with the number remaining prime. A stronger property that mention of, in my opinion, has great potential to confuse the reader. Better to state it in its own section. JackTheSecond (talk) 08:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not misunderstanding permutable primes (lol). They are a league higher in some senses (Sheldon primes are a bit more complex, because they incorporate the prime indices of the primes themselves), the only point I am making it is that it is a place where this notion can be extended and compared with another like-property (i.e. permutable primes). It does not harm the reader, I believe, especially since they are related concepts, and an extension and link for readers to understand what a permutable or emirp primes are, which 73 is a part of both. However, I will follow your wish, and move that point. I hope this consolidates our wishes, and what we think are the wishes of readers. Radlrb (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheldon Prime, an the number 73 being permutable