Talk:24 (number)

Untitled

What does "*24 has an aliquot sum of 36 and the aliquot sequence (24, 36, 55, 17, 1, 0). Twenty-four is only the aliquot sum of one number the square 529." mean? I am unable to parse this. The first sentence could mean (but I don't think it does) that the aliquot sum of 24 is 36 + the aliquot sequence of (24, 36, 55, 17, 1, 0). As far as I understand, an aliquot sequence shouldn't have any numbers greater than the number which is being sequence, while this sequence has numbers greater than 24. So what is the aliquot sequence (24, 36, 55, 17, 1, 0)? Hamiltondaniel (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard Guy said today that 'for many purposes, 24 is the largest number there is' — if I had a published source for that I'd put it in the article. 4pq1injbok 23:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Have you ever watched the movie The number 23? Well, everything in my life adds up to the number 24. From my time of birth, social security number, my birthdate, my license plate number, my work number, my cell phone number, my old address, my new address, my email, etc. It's weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.11.136 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Narnia 24 rectangle

Someone keeps adding this to the article and keeps getting reverted: "It [24] is also the most powerful number of all and holds the power of Narnia. it is better than any other number." The first time I saw that I reverted it. But given the insistence, I'm starting to think there might be a reason for this. Has anyone here read The Chronicles of Narnia, or seen the movie? Does the number 24 figure prominently in either? Anton Mravcek 16:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why so famous?

Why is it so famous? Why sportstars choose their number to be 24? In Brazil (check at the pt article why), anyone would try to avoid it as much as possible, being considered an offense to be assigned that number (people would way prefer 7, 13, or other badluck numbers rather than 24. In any sport thing with more than 23 numbered players, like races, they allow freely non orderly numberations just so to players can avoid that one, otherwise, people would stop competing just to avoid the risk of being the 24, until there were only 23 competitors), while in the US (mostly) people seem to seek after being the 24, the article should clarify why to that, I guess, as it generates much confusion specially here... 189.5.88.158 (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of 7 as a "bad luck" number before. If anything it is considered lucky in my experience.

(Though it is not a good thing to roll a 7 on your first roll of the dice in the game "craps".) 2601:200:C082:2EA0:889E:2D7:506C:9A7C (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

24 is the highest possible number! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.224.27.94 (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"The product of any four consecutive numbers is divisible by 24. This is because, among any four consecutive numbers, there must be two even numbers, one of which is a multiple of four, and there must be a multiple of three." What exactly is meant by 'divisible by 24'? I realise how stupid a question this may be as I am a self-confessed fool when it comes to mathematics. I still, however, feel my grip is strong enough to understand basic maths functions. That said I assumed the aforementioned sentence meant that the resultant number from adding together any four consecutive numbers should, whatever it may be, result in another whole number follwing the equation x/24 (where x is the result of the addition of the four consecutive numbers.) So 30+31+32+33 = 126, and said number should be divisible by 24. Now this is where my understanding falters, because while it is true that the aforementioned four numbers do contain two even numbers, one divisible by four as well as a number divisible by 3, and while such a fact is true of any four consectuive numbers - as the sentence states is the case - it is not the case that the number 126 is divisible by 24, nor are any of the other numbers that I got via addiition of four consecutive numbers. As such I must conclude that either the statement made in the quoted sentence is wrong, fails to make clear some further needed parametre to ensure its verifiability or, I have failed to understand some of the terms used. That is either I do not understand what is meant by 'The product of' - I feel certain this means the resultant number following addition of the sequence - or I have failed to grasp what is meant by 'divisible by' - I understand this to mean that the product of said sequence of numbers should result in a whole number when divided by 24. The division of 126 by 24 results in 5.25, it is my understanding that one number is not divisible by another unless this result is a whole number, if this isn't the case then every number is divisible by every number, surely? I cannot help but feel I have overlooked some obvious fact that is going to make this entire post seem completely stupid in every way, but if I have not then the above statement is patently false, as such I felt I should post this query, at the very least to learn just where it is I went so completely wrong an correct my own idiocies. 2.126.177.145 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The statement is that the product of 4 consecutive numbers is divisible by 24; that is:

30 × 31 × 32 × 33 = 24 × (15 × 31 × 8 × 11).

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah god I new I must have been missing something blindingly obvious, and now that whole wall of text exists to compound my complete mathematical retardation. Sorry about all that, is there anyway that the massive wall above can be deleted? It's clearly of no actual value to anyone. Anyway thanks for clearing that up for me. 2.126.177.145 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, fine with me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bingo names -

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)

I removed one fact about 24

I have removed from the Mathematics section the fact that 4! = 24 is the largest factorial that has no trailing zero in its decimal representation.

The reason is that this fact is overwhelmingly lacking in any mathematical significance. Please do not restore it. 2601:200:C000:1A0:E0B5:CA14:5879:A6C9 (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion

I am opposed to the inclusion of utter trivialities like

"24 degrees is the measure of the central angle and external angle of a pentadecagon."

in the article.

Or, if it must be in the article, it should be in some "Other" category, not in Geometry and not in Mathematics.

If it is in the article, then for consistency it would be important to include

24 eggs is two dozen of them!!!,

and

Golf tournaments often add the strokes from a total of three times 24 holes!!! 2601:200:C000:1A0:E1D3:55DD:7A48:6634 (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Please omit nonsense

In the section about 24 in mathematics, this statement appears:

"24 is the number of digits of the fifth and largest known unitary perfect number, when written in decimal: 146361946186458562560000."

This is utter garbage and has nothing to do with actual mathematics.

We might as well include every statement like "24 is how many eggs are contained in four half-dozen egg containers".

But a much, much better idea is to leave out garbage "facts" like this one, that have no relevance to anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:889e:2d7:506c:9a7c (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did all the mathematical aspects of 24 go???

Why has this page been gutted?

There used to be many interesting mathematical facts about 24; now they are gone.

What is the point of causing this article to be a great deal less informative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.36.148.11 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

New guidelines were drafted to remove extraneous number facts see: WP:NUM/G. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the number facts about 24 were not "extraneous" in the least.

What is the point of ruining an excellent and informative article?

Is Wikipedia running short of electrons? 98.36.148.11 (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)