Talk:56 (number)

An unfortunate edit

User:Salad Days recently moved this article to a new name ("56 (game)"), then wiped its contents clean. Now the rather extensive history of this article has been disconnected. I'm not certain of the right procedure in this situation, but thought I'd start by posting this message. Anyone who cares to look at the history of "56 (number)" prior to February, 2007 ought to consult the history page for "56 (game)". DavidCBryant 14:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The story started with an anon blanking 56 (number). Then in a few days somebody else saw the blank page and created an article about the game 56 (note that the IP of the guy who blanked, 71.233.129.128, is very similar to the IP of the guy who created the game, 71.250.232.151, although that's probably a coincidence).

I moved back 56 (game) to 56 (number) and reverted to the pre-blank version. The game itself doesn't seem notable enough to have its article. Its text is in the history though, if anybody cares about re-creating 56 (game). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

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) 20:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

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/LEsaros/LEsaros1-175.html
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:07:31, 404 Not Found
  • In 1520s BC on 2011-05-23 03:34:42, 404 Not Found
  • In 1630s BC on 2011-05-25 01:51:51, 404 Not Found
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:15, 404 Not Found
  • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:24, 404 Not Found
  • In 1409–1400 BC on 2011-06-01 15:26:12, 404 Not Found
  • In 159 (number) on 2011-06-01 18:16:53, 404 Not Found
  • In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:03:06, 404 Not Found
  • In 53 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:09:29, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

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) 20:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction?

The article contains the line "Adding up the divisors of 1 through 8 gives 56" which seems incorrect (or perhaps just unclear what the writer meant?) as the sum of 1 through 8 is 36, and the sum of the actual divisors of 56 that are between 1 and 8 is 1+2+4+7+8 = 22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.122.2 (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say that 56 is the sum of [the sum of the divisors of 'n'] for n going from 1 through 8. Which then might be clearer.

Example: sum of the divisors of 4 is 1+2+4=7, of 6 is 1+2+3+6=12, etc... add all theses numbers from 1 to 8, and you get (1) + (1+2) + (1+3) + 1+2+4) + (1+5) + (1+2+3+6) + (1+7) + (1+2+4+8) = 56. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 56 (number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714082609/http://www.math.iastate.edu/thesisarchive/MSM/EekhoffMSMSS07.pdf to http://www.math.iastate.edu/thesisarchive/MSM/EekhoffMSMSS07.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410183829/http://imomus.livejournal.com/282544.html to http://imomus.livejournal.com/282544.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaroscat.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEsaros/LEsaroscat.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 5 April 2017 (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) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

trisector

A 56-gon “is constructible if the use of an angle trisector is allowed since 56 = 2³ × 7.”

Might help to clarify that a heptagon can be made with a trisector (and a 2n-gon can be derived from an n-gon by classical means); otherwise one might suppose the use of a trisector has something to do with the only '3' in the factorization! —Tamfang (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)