Talk:Star number

Multiple merge proposals of "x prime" into "x number"

Result: Yes to all 9 proposed mergers. PrimeHunter 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In view of Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages#Merging, I propose to merge "x prime" into "x number" for the following small "x prime" stubs:

highly cototient prime into highly cototient number, star prime into star number, self prime into self number, Happy prime into Happy number, Lucas prime into Lucas number, Lucky prime into Lucky number, Motzkin prime into Motzkin number, Thabit prime into Thabit number, and Bell prime (a little more content) into Bell number.

The proposed mergers are so similar that I suggest comments are placed together on this page. PrimeHunter 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of these "x prime" only have 2 lines saying: "A x prime is a x number which is prime. The first x primes are ...". Texts like this would fit well in "x number" where the number form is defined. Merging leaves a redirect on "x prime", so it can still be searched and existing links will work. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but if more information is added later for some x, then "x prime" might get its own article again.

The stubs were mostly made around a year ago by Giftlite (whom I have notified), with few or no edits since. Most of the stubs are about rarely mentioned prime forms. Some of the names appear to have no Google hits outside Wikipedia and clones, and OEIS (which seems to accept almost any submission). There are many other "x numbers" for which mathematicians use the term "x primes" (Mersenne, Fermat, Fibonacci, ...), but I don't think Wikipedia should be first to use the name for any x. I suggest the normal merge redirect is placed on undocumented names, but that "x number" mentions which are primes without calling them "x primes". PrimeHunter 18:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes to merge Happy Prime into Happy Number. Bubba73 (talk), 18:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I say yes to all of the mergers listed above. Bubba73 (talk), 20:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree merge Happy and Star primes into their respective numbers. - DavidWBrooks 19:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, merge all of them, even the "large" Bell prime article. I agree avoiding "x prime" (using "prime x number" or whatever) would be best. -R. S. Shaw 01:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Fibonacci prime is another candidate for merger. Bubba73 (talk), 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agree in the case of highly cototient primes. All others I'd want to vote on in a case by case basis. Anton Mravcek 18:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You can choose which mergers to express an opinion about. I interprete an unmentioned article as no opinion on that article. It's 9 individual proposals with possibility of different votes and results, but I think the proposed mergers are too simple and similar to use 9 different talk pages for 9 separate discussions, many of them about 2-line stubs. PrimeHunter 00:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes to all 9 mergers, as nominator. There are at least 3 votes for and 0 against in all cases. I will perform the mergers. PrimeHunter 00:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Fibonacci prime should be done too. Bubba73 (talk), 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Fibonacci prime is too different to discuss with the 9 "x prime" stubs here. It's longer than all 9, and Fibonacci number is already very long. And there is a whole category [1] with Fibonaccci articles, so collecting all Fibonacci information in one article is not an option. If you want to propose a merger officially then I suggest you do it at the corresponding Fibonacci articles and not here. PrimeHunter 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want to formally propose a merger for Fib primes. Looking at the article and especially the category of Fib articles, I agree with your reasoning. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have performed the 9 mergers, adding a little more content in some cases, and leaving a redirect on "x prime" in all cases. I couldn't find a reference for the names "Bell prime", "highly cototient prime" and "Thabit prime", so I used other formulations in the "x number" articles, List of prime numbers, and a few other searched articles using "x prime". Some of the other "x prime" names appeared to have weak references but I kept them. I have not added Category:Prime numbers to any of the 9 "x number" articles, because they are already in the parent category "Integer sequences", or they have very little prime content. So the prime category has 9 fewer listings now. PrimeHunter 02:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture/diagram

I am guessing this article could use a graphical representation of a few of those star numbers represented in a figure form? Would I be correct? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, pictures would be nice. Can you make something good looking, for example building it with individual dots based on the source at Centered hexagonal number? There are pictures at http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Figurate.asp#star but they are probably copyrighted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I added it.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice picture! Did you make it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by starting with the source of Centered hexagonal number which somebody else made. Maybe I should have mentioned that in the edit summary for GFDL reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• GrayDotX.svg (discussion)
• RedDotX.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

2492382402 192.141.247.26 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Unsolved problem in mathematics:

Are any star numbers other than 1 square triangular? If so, are infinitely many star numbers square triangular? 88.235.214.122 (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)