Talk:209 (number)

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 Wikipedia. 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)

Discussion underway at Talk:209

• 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 [3] and [4]? 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 ^{talk to me} 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 after the warning and 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)

Drama-mongers gotta drama-monger? Some of us care more about the actual content of the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Abusive admin gotta abuse? All this seems to be about protecting your version of a page that has no governing criteria, and your abuse of tools and your failure to act as an admin should. Your communication to the new editor has been practically non-existent beyond warnings of blocking. You should work harder to do better. I can't believe you're an admin. I guess you will end up going the same way as Rubin at this rate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

"Protecting"? I have done nothing to protect or even request protection of this page, and have repeatedly stepped back from edit wars and let other editors have the last revert (yours being the latest instance). The protection was added to your preferred version by your involved ally in this discussion, NeilN. Meanwhile you have made tons of comments here about your imagined issues with user conduct and none about the actual content of the article, and have twice reverted in favor of a version for which the content-related comments on this talk page are running strongly against. Is that how you think WP:BRD is supposed to work? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sad to say your last post sums up the entire problem here. How does a new editor even know BRD exists? Have you communicated to them personally, as an admin? Did you attempt to address their edits using English with them on their talk page? You have flagrantly abused a tool which few editors are entitled to use but worse, you have flagrantly abused the trust the community once put in you: your failure to work this out as a human being is stark and will form part of an Arbcom case to see you de-sysopped. Your tone, your language ("your ally") etc is so far below our expectations, you disgust me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It is your behavior wrt BRD that I was discussing, not Genesyz's. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop side-stepping your behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Please, can we ease off on the aggression? No new editor who is sane is going to want to participate here. And David Eppstein, I categorically reject your implication that I'm involved here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The "factoid" that I shared has a kind of beauty that you personally don't find interesting, so no one else can be allowed to see it on "your" article. It is not trivial like 209 + 0 = 209; it has a symmetry that, if nothing else, is aesthetically pleasing. Is this so commonplace about a number that merely mentioning it in an article about a number merits this kind of editorial censorship and snobbery? Over this? Really? The spirit of Wikipedia is dead.

I had seen this property of the number 209 years ago and could not remember where I saw it. "It will be in Wikipedia" I thought. "You can find just about anything in Wikipedia." I am very disappointed with what I actually found in Wikipedia. Shame on you. Genesyz (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Genesyz I'm sorry that you have been treated in the way you have. We used to have admins here who would actively help new editors, but those times are long buried, instead now we see abusive reverts of good faith edits which ultimately drive people away from contributing. Feel free to contact me personally and I will do my best to help, but your final comment is completely correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I started this TALK for constructive communication. I didn't expect this weird arrogant authoritarian atmosphere. Yes, help would have been appreciated. I appreciate yours.

As for Smarandache, if he is anathema for some reason, that sequence is designated A003101 by OEIS, and if only numbers appearing early in sequences are considered "nice" enough to note, it should be noted that 209 is only the seventh number in that sequence, so I see no grounds for objection to the fact, it's relevance, or the source, other than imposition of dictatorial opinions about what qualifies as interesting or notable enough to be allowed to be seen by others. Genesyz (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

A003101: 0, 1, 3, 8, 22, 65, 209, . . . Isn't that early enough in the sequence?

Genesyz (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

我很高興看到中文版更好地賞識數學唯美 。:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genesyz (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Reference issues

Reference 7 is a duplicate of reference 6, which appears to be an unreliable source (zero GS citations, and one of the mirrors that GS finds is on viXra, generally a bad sign). Reference 8, to the OEIS, does not use the term that this article does; moreover, the OEIS indicates that Henry W. Gould studied this sequence decades earlier, so the term used in this article is unwarranted. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you'll need an admin to make those changes as it's now protected. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I do not care what this sequence is called or what source is cited, so long as this representation of 209 remains in the article.

If I messed up or duplicated citations, I aplogize; it was a mess trying to keep up with all the revisions. Genesyz (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

That's okay, don't worry. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

@Genesyz: But don't expect anyone else to find sources for you for material you want to add. If problems are identified with your sources then it's generally up to you to find better sources, especially if other editors don't think the material should be in the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Although you should expect those editors to have a civil discussion with you before slapping templates on your talk page and taking you to an "edit warring" noticeboard in order to get you blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the OEIS source [8] is sufficient. Genesyz (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I lean toward that being sufficient if OEIS reports the sequence is "nice" or "core", but the name is not sourced, and may be a WP:BLP violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Importance tags

Smarandache

• The first two sources (presently [6] and [7]) are clearly unreliable), and should not be used.
• The third (presently [8]) is a reliable source, but doesn't mention Smarandache, and OEIS doesn't consider the sequence "nice" (particularly notable or important.) We also need a "name" field for the reference, and using what OEIS calls it would confuse readers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I removed the unreliable sources and the terminology derived from them. I have no strong feeling about whether the fact should be included or not, though I generally think that "appearing early in a sequence the OEIS deems nice" is a good enough criterion, so if forced to choose, I would say that this item should be removed. I looked through all the OEIS nice sequences for occurrences of 209, and the only one where 209 appears early enough to be at all noteworthy is [1]: there are 209 distinct graphs on 7 or fewer unlabeled vertices. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Harshad numbers

Pretty far out in the sequence, and (an implied project criterion) Harshad numbers are not rare. Now that I've replaced the Mathworld source with OEIS, there can be no question that the sequence is somewhat notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Please explain the importance tags. I'm not trying to be a pain; I want to understand. How can you tell which sequences the OEIS considers nice? Is that an actual label? Maybe 209 can be identified as a Harshad number in the same manner and style as higher Harshad numbers are in Wikipedia. I don't know how to make links to other Wikipedia pages, but that is how it is done for 210.

Regardless of whether or not that other representation of 209 (currently cited with [7]) has particular mathematical importance, it is noteworthy for its nontrivial symmetry, which gives it uncommon aesthetic value. There should be affordance for those readers who appreciate such things in addition to mathematical utility. Genesyz (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If there is no standard for this kind of value, its absence should not be used as grounds for deeming the representation unimportant or unnoteworthy. Instead, maybe judicious standards should be developed by editors who understand and appreciate such aesthetic value in contexts like this. Genesyz (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If such standards do exist, I would appreciate being taught how to find them. Thanks in advance. Genesyz (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If nothing else, thank you for not removing the representation from the article. I don't care if its importance is questioned as long as it remains. Genesyz (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin: The importance of this representation is of a kind independent of whether it not it is designated a "nice" sequence. Being a "nice" sequence is not the all encompassing definition of importance. It would be nice if you would discuss this here instead of just reverting. Genesyz (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"nice" is one of the tags OEIS puts on sequences. It was suggested above that being early in a "nice" sequence should be one of the criteria for inclusion.

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Numbers and Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) have criteria, which, until recently, have been generally understood. If you want to suggest improvements, please comment on their respective talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

First, thank you for responding and thank you for including the Wikipedia:Notability link. The very first sentence there states the need for considering exceptions. I see that the page addresses guidelines about the notability of numbers, sequences, etc to be considered when deciding whether or not such subjects merit an article about the given topic itself, but I do not see where it addresses criteria for determining the notability of properties or descriptions of the number or sequence the article is about. I agree there should be commonsense guidelines about this too, but I do not see how anything in that source justifies your stance.

Second, contrary to your statement, it was suggested above that being early in a "nice" sequence is a sufficient criterion, not a necessary one. As I have pointed out above, this is not the sole potential source of value, and irrelevant to the value of this representation.

Genesyz (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Did you have some other more justifiable reason for the tag? Genesyz (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

If you have no other objection, then I will go ahead and remove that tag. Genesyz (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

We have explained our reasons over and over. Your obstinance is not a good reason for removing the tag. Do not remove it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No need to get testy. I have refuted your reasons. Do you have something I have not addressed? Genesyz (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The only refutation I see is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It is sad that TheRamblingMan has encouraged you in believing that your single opinion should outweigh the counterveiling opinions of the rest of us, but it is also not true that this is how decisions around here are made. See WP:CONSENSUS. If you wish a more formal procedure for deciding whether the tags should remain, rather than listening to the editors who are already here, you could try WP:RFC to attract a larger pool of editors to discuss the issue. But the discussion does not conclude when you think, in your own mind, that you have refuted everyone else; it concludes when a plurality of editors agree on what to do. Even if you count TRM's anything-goes approach as supporting yours, I don't see that yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think you feel you own the article and are not open to anything beyond your narrow scope of interest. I also think maybe you already have a history with TRM. I hope you recognize that despite what you consider obstinacy, the article is objectively better now than it was before. I also hope you can remember the purpose of Wikipedia and realize that others will sometimes appreciate things you can't. The pointless tag is an insult to them. Genesyz (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

You are sad. I'll keep my unimportant factoid to myself I guess. You win. Wikipedia is yours. Genesyz (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

For now. Genesyz (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Genesyz:--I have reverted your self-removals but have kept the tags.Please don't feel discouraged.I will be shortly launching a WP:RFC, which is the only way to go, since, it's pretty clear that this t/p discussion isn't getting anymore productive.Winged Blades^Godric 09:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

And, @everybody:-Please avoid commenting on contributors.Winged Blades^Godric 09:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for instruction

There are many things I do not know how to do that I try to figure out by examining what others have done in the editing process. If anyone has the time, interest, and patience to answer specific questions, I would be grateful.

(1) Is there a general editing tutorial? (2) Is there a searchable index for the various standards for editing? (3) How do you refer to a different Wikipedia article within an edit? (4) How do you respond under a comment in the talk section without starting a new thread? Genesyz (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Genesyz: Have you looked at Help:Editing? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

After 5 edit conflicts, I can make more detailed comments as to 2-4 later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(2) No. There isn't even an index to the Notability guidelines (determining whether a Wikipedia article should exist). Generally, Wikipedia:Wikiprojects privide criteria for what sorts of things should be in articles, but The Rambling Man is opposed to all such criteria, apparently believing a free-for-all is better for Wikipedia.

(3) To refer to (say) 210, you can use [[210 (number)|210]] or {{num|210}}.

(4) WP:TPG is complicated. Generally, the following structure is used:

Original comment. (signature)

:Reply 1 by user 2. (optional signature)

:Reply 2 by user 2. (signature)

::Reply by user 1 or 3. (signature)

... but there are variations where this is unworkable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you both. Arthur Rubin, I don't understand your first comment, but the rest (other than the criticism of The Rambling Man) was helpful. Genesyz (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Genesyz, here is a more precise diagram of talkpage threading:

Original post "What cars do you like?"

First reply to OP "I like Volkswagens!"

Reply #1 to first reply "I think Volkswagens are stupid.."

Reply to reply #1 to first reply "No, they're great!"

Reply #2 to first reply "Me too!"

Second reply to OP "I like Hyundai!"

Reply #1 to second reply "I think Hyundai cars break down easy"

Reply number three to OP "I like Honda!"

Reply number four to OP "I like Saab"

Of course those would all use ~~~~ after them to sign. Softlavender (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic. Take it to user talk if you must. --NeilN talk to me 5:01 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Don’t worry, Rubin often makes unfounded and unverifiable personal attacks, that why he was disgracefully de-sysopped. Of course we have a notability policy, it’s at WP:N. WikiProjects may have their own more refined inclusion criteria but for instance, this article is outside the scope of any active and functional wikiproject so local consensus is just fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Your personal attacks against Rubin and your repetition of already-falsified claims of inactivity at WikiProject Numbers are noted. But notability policy is not relevant, since we're not discussing whether to have an article on 209 or not. The issue is what content about that subject to include. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Eppstein, I'm just reporting the truth. Rubin's desysop was directly as a result of a series of unfounded personal attacks on me. WikiProject numbers has been tagged for half a year with "This WikiProject is believed to be semi-active." (and any "project" whose talkpage has attracted fewer than 250 posts in eight years is clearly inactive). As for notability, this is where content builders need to start their guide for editing. So I'm afraid just about everything you've written is incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC) You are taunting Rubin with his de-sysop at every opportunity you can; I have to assume that you are hoping for a repeat of what led to the de-sysop, relentless attacks until he snapped back and was then taken to court over that snap-back, with the attackers left untouched.\ You are deliberately choosing a rude form of address for me, I assume in hope that I will also be easy to rile up. Your comment on the project talk page was quickly answered by a project participant new to this particular discussion, so your claim that the project is inactive is false. You have chosen to repeat claims here, knowing already that they are false; we have a word for people who do that. Genesyz, I hope you see what kind of person you are allying yourself with. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC) No, I'm reminding him that he hasn't stopped doing what got him de-sysopped in the first place. Your name is Eppstein, there's nothing rude in that at all. Project is basically dead, and always has been, you can't argue against that, the evidence I've provided is utterly irrefutable, while you just make some odd claim that the project is active - all someone did was to tell me how many page watchers there are. That, of course, does not relate in any way whatsoever to the activity of a project. There are no false claims here. You appear to be losing your temper with Genesyz (accusations of "obstinance" for instance), I suggest you remove yourself from the discussion, and allow others to engage with the new editor, as all you are doing now is discouraging them from contributing. Not what an admin should be doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC) And it is entirely without irony that the only actual contributor there said I fear that we've driven away an enthusiastic new editor for breaking rules which haven't even been agreed, let alone written down somewhere accessible. So, bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC) A little lesson in etiquette for you: In the US, at least, it is quite rude to address someone by their unadorned last name. That is only for situations like drill sergeants talking to their underlings. Usernames are always safe, so you may call me David Eppstein. My colleagues in other endeavors call me David; that (but not other forms of my first name) is also acceptable. Or if you insist on a certain level of formality that comes from addressing people by last name rather than first, you must follow the rest of the formality and use an honorific, which in this case (since mathematics is within my professional expertise) would be "Prof. Eppstein". "Dr. Eppstein" would also be acceptable, although less perfect (because I am not a physician). "Mr. Eppstein" comes across as a snub, as saying that you don't recognize that I have any expertise. And "Eppstein" is right out. As this is not the first time you have used such rude forms of address, I have to assume that it is deliberate sniping, much like your repeated references to Rubin's de-sysop, much as you might try to deny it. It is not appropriate here and only serves to make you look small. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC) A little lesson in etiquette for you: in the UK it's just fine. So cheers for that. I'm not the small one here, nor do I care two hoots about your supposed qualifications, nor am I duty bound to respect your so-called qualifications in any sense, nor are your qualifications in any way relevant to the manner in which you have been treating new editors, nor am I the one who's failing to actually help the editor in question. You haven't addressed any of the real issues here. But I'm certain you're very proud of your certificates etc, I have a few myself but the last thing I'd do is berate anyone on Wikipedia for failing to recognise them. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Also, in other cultures, when people are informed they are being rude, they generally apologize and promise not to do that, rather than doubling down on their rudeness. I suppose you're going to tell me that the English also don't do that? Our at least, not whatever English subculture you identify with? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC) As soon as you recognise your failings as an admin and editor in this situation, your poor handling of this new and enthusiastic editor, your abuse of tools, etc, then we can move on to how I should reference you and your various qualifications. You really are missing the point 100%, which is shocking considering you are an admin and have so many qualifications. And thanks for your unbridled personal attack, why would you assume I associate with lad culture? My three degrees not enough for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Why would I know what degrees you might have, when all you show here is revulsion against any notion that expertise might have value? David Eppstein (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2018 (UTC) You're the only one between us to bring up any so-called "expertise". You were the one berating me for not respecting your apparent set of certificates. You're the one to bring up "lad culture". You're the one not helping new editors. You're the one abusing tools. I showed no "revulsion" at all at anything you've said or done other than your apparent failure to assume good faith, do the right thing for the new editor, communicate directly with them, help them, and make Wikipedia the place it should be. It seems you're heading down the same path as Rubin with a seeming disconnect with what our editors and readers expect from Wikipedia, and a need to make personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC) It has nothing to do with certificates, and everything to do with following the norms of polite and civil discourse. I gave you three options for addressing me; only one involved titles or degrees. Your response has been to throw another hissy fit over certificates. That gives me some idea how to categorize your attitudes towards intellectual endeavor (what should be the main goal here). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Oh no, not at all. The hissy fits are all your own. That I didn't respect your alleged qualifications was your beef. I couldn't care less about what you claim to know. What I do care about is everything I've mentioned a few times that you've side-stepped every time. Your unhelpful, non-admin-like behaviour, your abuse of tools, etc. Just FYI, people refer to me in numerous ways, I seldom get upset to the point where I have to inform them of my educational background. You should not do that. It's not becoming at all of a regular editor, let alone an admin. You have no priority here, you are just someone with a mop who can do some bits and pieces some of us can't, yet you singularly failed to help this new editor. I'm really sorry to tell you this but on Wikipedia, no-one cares what you claim to know. As an admin, you should know that, and you should be working hard to retain the services of an enthusiastic new editor, instead of which you're doing just about the opposite. And I'm still waiting to understand why you personally attacked me with your veiled link to lad culture? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Rather than continuing to contribute to this off-topic and pointless discussion, I have asked NeilN to hat all the off-topic discussions here. Regardless of whether he does, I have no interest in continued discussion with you, here or anywhere else. So you will have to go ask an expert on English grammar for why the phrase "whatever English subculture you identify with", with a link to one example of an English subculture, is not actually an accusation that that culture specifically is the one you identify with. Feel free to have the last word; I won't respond. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Purely abusive. You deliberately pipelinked it to Lad culture. I will have the last word, you're no longer fit to be an admin I'm afraid. Your disappointing behaviour, self-aggrandising and personal attacks have now risen to a point where your future edits will need considerable scrutiny, probably leading to the same kind of admonishment as Rubin. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks Genesyz, Rubin was de-sysopped for his continued unverifiable personal attacks on me. If you need further help from me when dealing with him and Eppstein, please don't hesitate to contact me directly. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC about whether certain data belong in the article

The consensus is to remove this information from the article:

• 209 can be written as a sum of consecutive integers raised to powers that are the same consecutive integers in reverse order: 209 = 1⁶ + 2⁵ + 3⁴ + 4³ + 5² + 6¹.
• 209 is a Harshad number (a number that is divisible by the sum of its own digits), because 209/(2+0+9) = 19.

References

Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The t/p discussants are having a protracted dispute over whether a particular set of mathematical properties/observations about 209 are worthy-enough to be included at the article, which has essentially led to a stalemate.

The previous discussions may be read at this, this & this thread.

The participants are thus requested to kindly solicit their views on whether the facts are significant enough to be kept in the article or not.Please provide rationales for your comments.Winged Blades^Godric 09:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No, we should not include the information about Harshad numbers or sums of consecutive powers. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, we should not include either the information about the sum of consecutive powers nor about the Harshad numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• No, both seem like numerical coincidences of the kind that are omnipresent and not of special interest, unless there is evidence of the significance of those properties (e.g., they have been subject to systematic study by multiple authors, or have importance in some application or other field). --JBL (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. My comments are above, and some would say I shouldn't repeat them here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Definitely No for being a Harshad number: that's way too common for smallish numbers, and not particularly noteworthy, especially given a choice of radices (radixes?). 209 is also Harshad in bases 7, 12, 19, 20, and 23 (which is as far as I bothered to check). Presumably base-10 is mentioned because that's what we use in daily life, but other than that, there's no particular reason to favor it. But Ambivalent about the reverse sum of powers; that's at least mildly interesting, but I certainly don't think we'd be missing much if it weren't here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• No- this seems like a rather trivial factoid. Reyk _YO! 08:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• No for Harshad number. They are not rare. Moreover they are base-dependent. Maybe for the sum-of-powers thing; but it needs to be discussed at project level, not a separate discussion for each integer (is there a Project Integers?). Maproom (talk) 08:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Maproom: See banner at top of this talk page. It is called Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

  There's also Wikiproject Wholes and WikiProject Irrationals. EEng 08:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• No The Harshad number page lists the many low-numbers that qualify; it is too common of a quality for it to be significant enough to discuss in this article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes so what if the property is not rare. For an article about a chemical, one doesn't fret about including that it is soluble in water or for an animal that it is afraid of humans. The article is not cluttered, but if it were this could be put in an infobox or bar with other facts. Most readers are not mathematicians and if they're like me, enjoy going down rabbitholes and learning what a Harshad number is. It would be two sentences tops, including the one mentioning it not being rare in "small numbers." I also agree this should be decided at a project level, along with what a small number is and which other properties are not worthy of inclusion Nessie (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• We all have opinions (for instance, my own is that as the result of a simple formula, the sum of powers property is much more interesting than decimal-representation-based properties like being a Harshad number). But it would be best to make the choice in a more principled and objective way than purely based on our own opinions. The guiding policy here is WP:UNDUE, according to which our choice of which aspects of the subject to cover in which depth should be guided by their prominence in reliable sources. OEIS has 4244 hits for 209; obviously we can't and shouldn't list them all, so we have to choose. As I've already discussed, I think it is reasonable to select sequences described by OEIS as "nice", in which 209 appears reasonably early. This is true neither for the sums of consecutive powers (not nice, although 209 is early in it) nor the Harshad numbers (not early). An alternative and equally principled consideration is the availability of sourcing: what properties are discussed in-depth by reliable sources, how many such sources are there, and do they mention 209 specifically? For the sums of consecutive powers we have (other than OEIS) only an unreliable source in a self-published book (the disputed Smarandache one). For Harshad numbers, even sources I could find that list the sequence fairly far out (e.g. [2]) do not go far out enough to list 209, and that's also true of OEIS. The same reasoning would also argue for removing the property about being a record-holding sum of three squares (it is early in the sequence but not "nice"). My personal opinion is to keep that sequence since there's a story we can tell about it involving Legendre's three-square theorem, but in the absence of a "nice" tag or other published sources about it I will not object to its removal, if other editors wish to remove it as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• To me, personally, properties of an integer that depend upon its decimal representation have no mystique, and so the sum-of-powers property has the more appeal of the two. However, that is just my own aesthetic sense and my own sentiment for what is "important", and I would not wish to impose that as a criterion for what belongs in an encyclopedia. I agree with David Eppstein's suggestion above: it is reasonable to select sequences described by OEIS as "nice", in which 209 appears reasonably early (I gloss "reasonably early" as "within the first seven items"). Neither property in question satisfies this condition, failing on either the "nice" prong or the "early" prong. If there were reliable sources other than the OEIS, they would also count in favor of including these facts as bullet points. For example, if peer-reviewed papers cited an OEIS sequence, even one that OEIS did not itself label "nice", and those papers emphasized the importance of 209 in that sequence, then we could call that property of 209 significant. However, my literature search didn't turn up anything like that. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment this is totally wasteful. You need a project-wide guideline, not an article-specific set of opinions. Tomorrow we'll be back here again for 210 (number) or 211 (number). Those who believe this "Numbers WikiProject" to be anything other than dead in the water need to start acting as if it's a live project, come up with some general inclusion criteria that can be assessed by the community. This minuscule corner of Wikipedia is not the place to discuss what should or should not be included in literally thousands of articles. This can't even be safely used as a precedent, as the subset of subject matter under discussion is so niche. You should know that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. I see no reason why the (somewhat humorous) essay on when a property is "notable" enough to be considered one of the three indicating notability should not generally be used, subject to exceptions, with WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT "arguments" disregarded. Being "early" in a "nice" (or better) WP:OEIS sequence seems an acceptable reason for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, I take that back. For small numbers, the criteria would leave the article much too large. For 100 through 10⁷, seems reasonable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

  That's a good point. XOR'easter (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if my opinion is welcome or appropriate here, but I'll let you decide. As far as mentioning that 209 is a Harshad number, I thought if it was important enough to mention for 210, then it should be just as significant for 209. Honestly, I don't care in the slightest if it's included. As for the sum-of-powers representation, regardless of any lack of "importance," it is nevertheless notable for its symmetry. If this aesthetic value were so commonplace, I would not have included it. If there is no room for things that can be appreciated for simple aesthetic beauty anywhere in any of the innumerable articles about numbers in Wikipedia, then that is a goofy and pointless loss. I understand the need to keep the articles from becoming awash with trivialities, but it is just as bad to over-sanitize them to the point of cold sterility. It's an interesting representation I thought would be nice to add. Take it or leave it. Genesyz (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I welcome your opinion, and for my own part, I generally have nothing against writing about mathematical results simply because they have an aesthetic appeal. However, here on Wikipedia specifically, we are constrained: we can only report the aesthetic judgments that reliable sources have already written down elsewhere. We are summarizers and stenographers, not innovators. It is also unfortunately the case that we have come to use ordinary words like "notability" in idiosyncratic ways peculiar to Wikipedia itself. What is "notable" in the sense of Wikipedia policy can sometimes only roughly parallel what is noteworthy more broadly. XOR'easter (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's a good thing there's WP:NODEADLINE because after this discussion's over we'll need to move on to 210, then 211, and so on. At this rate we'll never finish. EEng 02:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Wait... I have a plan... If editors who joined on even-numbered days work on the even naturals, and those who joined on odd-numbered days work from on the odd naturals, that would speed things up. Editors who joined on February 29 will work on 0. EEng 03:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• XOR'easter, thank you for the reasoned and civil response. Where would someone look for the requisite reliable sources for judgements of aesthetic appeal? I don't think there are any. The aesthetic value is in the symmetry, and the symmetry is self-evident. Nevertheless, it's clear that some feel very strongly that the item should be removed. I have not reviewed the editorial history of this article, but I get the impression there must be hordes of people trying to cram in all kinds of nonsense that detract from the article and leave readers wondering "What does that have to do with the number 209?" or "This isn't the kind of thing I want to see when I look up the number 209." Good grief. That would maybe explain some of the incivility. It must be exhausting. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is diminished by myopic rigidity and personal attachments. That's a shame, but it's obviously not going to change either. Who are these articles written for and why? It doesn't seem to be for the general public. This certainly isn't worth wasting any more time over. If you all really feel the representation pollutes the page, just delete it. I don't even want it on Wikipedia anymore. Go ahead and move on to 210. You might want to start with the Harshad mention. Genesyz (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussions in mathematics, more than those in any of the other sciences, routinely touch on the aesthetic value of this or that result or class of results – see Mathematical beauty. EEng 08:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I withhold my vote on this one because I cannot come up with a satisfactory criterion. Most of the considerations that I can think of have been reasonably discussed above, such as the rival criteria of aesthetics and mathematical non-triviality. But what is trivial? I grant that saying "Gee whizz! In hexadecimal 666, the number of the beast would be 1638 in decimal; let's put that in the article" would be an insult to both reader and WP, and to point out that "decimal 11111 is the sum of successive primes starting from the 11th prime" is only a little better, because that is a quirk of the radix that leads to no interesting proof or conjecture (none that I have noticed anyway). But superficially Goldbach's conjecture seems equally trivial, until one finds that it is a general conjecture with many deep implications, irrespective of notation. So there is no argument about documenting Goldbach. But how about what I call the 39 conjecture: "There are precisely four integers of the form Prime1*Prime2, such that each of the four integers is the sum of all consecutive primes from Prime1 to Prime2. eg 39= 3+5+7+11+13". (As a hint to the numerically challenged, compare 10, 39, 155, 371. Let me know when you find a counter-example or a proof one way or another.) I have never even thought of a line of proof, nor any non-trivially interesting implications, but I should be very uncomfortable disqualifying every possible mention of that observation in the articles on those numbers. Could someone please comment, bearing in mind that many readers do indeed find such observations intriguing and are likely to look them up in WP once they realise that such entries exist. I then might be moved to vote. JonRichfield (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.