Talk:18 (number)

Latest comment: 3 months ago by XOR'easter in topic Discuss current mathematics content

Removed

edit
  • It is considered a number of the devil due to the fact that 6+6+6=18, and 666 is the number of the beast, as described in chapter 13, verse 18 of the Book of Revelation. There are also 18 letters in the words six-hundred sixty six.
I removed this for numerous reasons, first of all a simple search of "18 is a number of the devil" or "18 is a number of the beast" or "18 is the number of the devil" or "18 is the number of the beast" returns no results at all on Google.com. Also non of the other languages articles mention this, including languages spoken by perhaps more Christian inclined people (Spanish, Italian).
Also in "six-hundred and sixty six" there is 21 letters! No evidence to show anywhere that it is a "demonic" number of even believed to be. - S.Azzopardi (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
True, but to be pedantic and fair to the user, he did say "six-hundred sixty six" which does have eighteen letters; without the "and" is how it is frequently said (insisted upon in school) in the USA. That to one side, though, i've never heard of the suggestion that eighteen is an evil number. Cheers, Lindsay 17:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

arabic?

edit

What in the world is that passage talking about with the right hand and arabic? Can someone explain it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.44.20 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. I've figured out what the passage was supposed to mean and changed it to be easier to understand. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Second paragraph

edit

I find the second paragraph, about the pronunciation of 18 vs 80, to be unnecessary, or at least unnecessary in the introduction of the article. Should this paragraph be scaled down or removed all together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse (talkcontribs) 19:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Retired jersey numbers

edit

Per WP:PRESERVE, here is the list of retired #18 jersey numbers and racecars that were mentioned in the article:

This material may be of interest for a future List of retired numbers in sports article. — JFG talk 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Neo-nazis

edit

I believe 18 does have a meaning in a neo-Nazi context, but ADL is too biased to be a reliable source. Perhaps someone could copy in the BBC source used in the Combat 18 article? (Reference 1, not Reference 2, which should be a note requiring a reference.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bingo names -

edit

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) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Problem paragraph

edit

As part of the ongoing kerfuffle, XOR'easter (best wishes, btw) restored the following paragraph:

  • 18 is the sum-of-divisors of 10 (the only number to have this sum, aside from the prime number 17). [cite OEIS]

I do not think this is a good addition; I believe it is completely true, but so is the following paragraph:

  • 18 is the second number (after 12) to be the sum-of-divisors of more than one number, viz. 10 and 17.

These two statements are simply different angles on the same trivial facts. I do not believe that citing OEIS in this way is helpful or necessary - after all you can check that the statements are true without a pocket calculator, you just need a piece of paper, a pencil, and n minutes for some small n. Unless you think that the bare fact that 18 is the SOD of 10 and 17 is noteworthy, just as a large fraction of all integers are the SOD of one or more numbers, I do not see that either of these embellishments is notable. I think that OEIS really is a problem if used to support *notability*. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discuss current mathematics content

edit

Evaluating the current mathematics content of the article.

I believe all points curently on this page are notable. 18 as the sum-of-divisors of 10 (only one solution) is notable for it being a unique solution in an OEIS nice sequence (and not predictable in any sense). Regarding the point on pentominoes, I'm not convinced that it should not be included because of "WP:NROUTINE", as it is a non-routine solution for pentominoes, where 18 is not a solution for any other set of polyominoes, with any of the relevant symmetries considered (with holes, without holes, one-sided, or fixed). The numbering of finite simple groups that are Lie groups is clearly 18, and an important enumeration very often cited. "18 imaginary quadratic fields with class number 2" is also a count that is notable on its own regarding the imaginary quadratic fields of class 2 (when we also count the nine "Heegner numbers"). (All of these additions were kept by at least one other editor, aside from myself, meaning there is also agreement to keep; at least from recent input from editors.) Radlrb (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Have you read my paragraph above? Imaginatorium (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we can talk about all of the relevant points here. I gave my opinion about it here. I happened to see that paragraph right as I decided to write this topic. Let's converse, then. Radlrb (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, converse. Have you read my argument? Can you see any flaw in it? You write "...sum-of-divisors of 10 (only one solution)", which does not seem very clear to me, but if I guess at its meaning, it is simply false. Please also refrain from pumping out the "at least one person did not delete it, therefore there is agreement (or whatever) to keep it" stuff. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I said, there is also agreement to keep, not "consensus". Two different meanings. I did show you my point of view, that it is a singular *non-trivial* Radlrb (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC) solution regarding that very point, and therefore I believe it is worth including; not in any way "routine", it is on topic, about the number 18. It is not false in meaning, only one number aside from 17 (the trivial case, since it is prime) has a sum of divisors that is 10. Radlrb (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Your response suggests that you simply cannot understand what I wrote. Do you agree that it is true that: "18 is the second number (after 12) to be the sum-of-divisors of more than one number, viz. 10 and 17." ...? Imaginatorium (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Huh? Strange commentary you made in your first sentence. Ah, yes I agree with your newly-quoted statement, and they are both note-worthy points to include, since they don't have many solutions, and only have one non-trivial one. Either way of stating it is fine, clearly, though I rather give the numbers that have a SOD of 18 or for any given number x *particularly with a small number of such solutions*Radlrb (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC) (i.e., if it is not clear enough, to list them explicitly). Radlrb (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Once again, your first sentence appears to confirm you do not understand what I am saying. Can you really not see anything odd about saying: "Hey, this number is the SOD of just one number (provided we jiggle with things to omit the other number because it's prime); and Hey, this number is the SOD of two numbers (and only the second such)." Can you explain how 'the largest number of [solutions] so far' can be compatible with *particularly with a small number of such solutions*? And if this is not routine, what is? Imaginatorium (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
On further reflection, I have concluded that I was wrong to restore the bit about 18 being the sum-of-divisors of 10. It was synthesis, adding an observation not given in the cited source to make the claim sound more important. XOR'easter (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply