Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:49, 3 January 2018

Numbers Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Editing

Remove errors, but leave the facts alone please. Genesyz (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If the formatting can be improved, feel free to improve it, but please stop deleting FACTS without an objective reason. Genesyz (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

There are project guidelines for entries which should be in number articles. I've reformatted your entries and tagged 2 for importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the attempt at reformatting. Please take another look at the 209 = 1^6 + 2^5 etc one though. Also, the previously listed set of sums of squares should be on the page. There is no reason to remove these. Genesyz (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

What criterion is there for the "importance" tag? They are mathematical facts about the number 209. People have different reasons for finding different facts important. Likewise, the "citation" tag is meaningless for a mathematical fact. If you find an error, by all means point it out, but there is no reason to ask for s citation for a mathematical fact. Genesyz (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Rubin, stop attempting to own this article, stop tagging mathematical truths for {{citation needed}} and stop making erroneous edits from your phone to leave articles in a mess. Stop disrupting Misplaced Pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:CALC. Simple arithmetic doesn't need a citation, but 209 being the smallest number representable as the sum of three squares in six ways does require a citation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty simple arithmetic. And stop trying to OWN the page, it's not yours, it belongs to the community. Your edits are making the page a complete mess and you need to stop until such a time that you can reliably and competently edit mainspace articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Would someone please make the fonts match? Genesyz (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

If the objection to certain facts was that they were not of clear mathematical significance, then that concern should be assuaged by placing these facts under the heading "Other Representations." Any objection to these facts being available at all on the page should explain objectively why these facts are inappropriate even under this innocuous heading. Genesyz (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Welcome to the Island of Misfit Editors. EEng 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What your language and tone, please, EEng. This is a community. You do not have to find these facts interesting in order for other people to. Genesyz (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Watch

Mind your manners, please. Genesyz (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I cannot remember the name for representing a number like 209 = 2^8 - 47, but it is not trivial. Does anyone recognize this? Genesyz (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Power of 2 minus prime? Still only appropriate to list if named in a reliable source (which does not include the "Encyclopedia of Mathematics") and not common. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, why did you remove the citations I provided? Genesyz (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Questioning an uncited claim is one thing, but doing so after removing the citation is another. Please kindly return the citations. Genesyz (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you seriously taking issue with the meanings of Harshad numbers and semiprimes, or with the fact that 209 is an example of these? Genesyz (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As I and others have said repeateadly in our edit summaries, we are questioning the significance of these claims, not their truth. Why should I care that 209=206+3, or that 209=10^2+10^2+3^2, or that 209=210-1, or that 209=418/2, or etc etc? More to the point, why should readers care? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are interested in understanding, I hope these citations will give you what you need to see why the facts I have added are not in the same category as the examples of trivialities you provided. If not, rest assured they are of interest to others, and this interest is not contingent on yours. Genesyz (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Smarandache? That convinces me only that the subject is a non-notable triviality. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. Genesyz (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

What is contentious about the sources cited with and ? Genesyz (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Anything Smarandache says is unreliable. I believe it would still be unusable outside of his article even if quoted in an otherwise reliable source, as that would only confirm that he said it, which is of limited relevance.

The first two references for the "Smarandache" claims must be removed; the OEIS source could stand, but we need a real source for a name of the property. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you really doubt the existence of such numbers or that 209 is such a number? Genesyz (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2018

Mathworld frequently invents terms, and is often wrong. OEIS is a much better source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The only property currently listed that is of any interest is the record-holding number of representations as sum of three squares. It is too far along the sequences of semiprimes and Harshad numbers for its appearances in those sequences to be significant. My preference would be to remove all other properties than the three-square one, and maybe add something about https://oeis.org/A001353, https://oeis.org/A002720, and https://oeis.org/A057588 . —David Eppstein (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. EEng 17:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. TRM, however, seems to want to remove all standards from list articles, so we may need an RfC to confirm standards. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, an RFC is the way forward if you wish to properly define inclusion criteria that stands up to scrutiny, otherwise what interests you and Eppstein may be very different to what interests me and Genesyz. Who knows? Trying to impart your own standardisation on this page without a decent community-wide consensus is really indicative of ownership problems. I've noticed many, many edit summaries claiming things to be "not notable" which are, generally, simply completely false. This needs to stop. Making these articles into walled gardens is driving people away from improving them, or adding to them, because they have no idea about your arcane inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I would prefer to use "what interests the editors of OEIS" than my own specific preferences. That's why my criterion is usually whether the number appears early on in a sequence tagged by OEIS as "nice". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that what our readers expect to see? Where's the objective criterion encapsulating that perspective which we could direct editors like Genesyz toward without simply and continually reverting their edits with summaries such as "Mostly uninteresting", "Still uninteresting...", "For fuck sake can we have a block here?", etc. Making these articles into walled gardens is unhelpful, especially when you all seem so keen to "revert" rather than actually help this editor by pointing them to the defined criteria for inclusion in such articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The call for a block was because G violated WP:3RR about five times over, not about content. And the criterion that we were directing G towards, that they ignored in their edit-warring, and that you are supporting the ignoring of, is WP:RS. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you even think this editor is aware of 3RR or RS? I'm not supporting the ignoring of (sic) anything. I'm advocating that you and the other highly experienced editors here actually do the right thing with a new, good faith editor. Nothing this editor is doing amounts to vandalism yet you're all treating them like one. Shame on you all, it's a good job none of you are admins, that would be a disgrace. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what the edit summaries (which G was clearly responding to, so was aware of) and warning on G's talk page were for. The edit-warring continued long after the warning. Also, I genuinely can't tell whether you are being ignorant, sarcastic, or deliberately trying to rub salt into wounds, but I am an admin and Rubin was only recently de-adminned. On the other hand, per WP:INVOLVED I have no intention of taking administrative action here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid "edit summaries" is not the way to communicate with people here, especially those with fewer than 100 edits. You need to do better, all of you. Driving people away like this is completely unacceptable. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

By all means show me where you and the others here communicated with this editor on his talk page to assist him in understanding what you all wanted him to do. All I saw was templated warnings and threats of blocks. "Admin"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There you go, actual abuse of rollback by a supposed admin, David Eppstein. What a joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I saw that too. --NeilN 20:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

When an editor has already been warned for edit-warring and continues to make the same edits six more times against the talk page consensus, rollback rather than continued attempts at communication becomes appropriate. Are you and TRM really trying to defend this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and bad content? Welcoming new editors and not biting them is a good thing in general, but it's not a suicide pact or a license to let our articles get overrun by junk factoids unabated. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Eppstein, you're dealing with an inexperienced editor. You flagrant abuse of rollback is noted; I'll be taking this to Arbcom in due course. Your abuse of your position is beyond contempt. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Unassessed Numbers articles
• Unknown-importance Numbers articles
• WikiProject Numbers articles