Talk:1729 (anecdote)

Rename
I think we should move this to Hardy-Ramanujan number. Anthony DiPierro 14:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. There are probably numerous H-R numbers.

Charles Matthews 15:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Hardy Ramanujan number is "the smallest number representable in two ways as a sum of two cubes." How could there be numerous H-R numbers? You're thinking of taxicab numbers, apparently. Anthony DiPierro 17:03, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am with Charles. The anecdote became interesting in itself. Pfortuny 17:05, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The anecdote is famous. H and R wrote many papers together, so there will be plenty of choices of H-R number.

Charles Matthews 17:06, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The term "Hardy-Ramanujan number" refers to a specific number, 1729. There may be other numbers talked about by Hardy and Ramanujan, but they will never be referred to as the Hardy-Ramanujan number. Anthony DiPierro 17:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Source? Charles Matthews 17:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

,, ,. Want more? Anthony DiPierro 17:16, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

MathWorld isn't authoritative, you know. Charles Matthews 17:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What would you consider authoritative? Anthony DiPierro 17:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about someone in the business? Charles Matthews 17:42, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What business? Would a statement by a math teacher be enough? Anthony DiPierro 18:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * For my part, even though Hardy-Ramanujan number may be used to name a number, the point here is not the name but the number (whose presumed name is completely misleading). Otherwise we ought to call $$\sqrt{2}$$ the Pitagoras number. The point here is the anecdote on the number, not its namePfortuny 18:35, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Sorry, btw, Wolfram et al. mean nothing to me in terms of nomenclature). Pfortuny 18:37, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * If the point is the number, and not the name, then this should be merged with 1729 (number) and redirected. Anthony DiPierro 18:52, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See, for example number of the beast. Anthony DiPierro 18:58, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I misexplained myself. The point is the anecdote on the number. The number of the beast and golden ratio and pi and... are classically called like that. Wolfram is not a classical (for my taste).Pfortuny 19:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again I ask, what kind of reference would you like? I gave 4 randomly, but I can surely get more.  Anthony DiPierro 19:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * My point stands that 1729 (anecdote) is an absolutely terrible title. If you're going to use the ambiguous argument, then there are numerous anecdotes about 1729.  Are there other suggestions perhaps?  Maybe we could just expand and rename as taxicab number, or do you not believe that that term exists either? Anthony DiPierro 19:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also myriad. Anthony DiPierro 19:20, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. I may think of it twice. Pfortuny 21:09, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the title is fine. And I agree with Pfortuny: scanning the Internet is just a way to get misinformation copied from site to site, anyway.

Charles Matthews 17:51, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Of course you think the title is fine. You made it up. As for the use of the name, I have asked you to provide me with a standard by which to see if the name is legitimate, and you have not responded. Anthony DiPierro 17:54, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute - Charles, werent you the guy that was hung up on calling a "group" a "string" on the Go article? - SV (talk)


 * That was Charles Matthews the go player; this is Charles Matthews the mathematician. Same person. Charles Matthews 20:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Merits of the title itself aside, what's the argument for keeping all this info separate from 1729 (number)? I can't think of any reason for keeping anecdotes about things in separate articles from those about the things themselves (unless the article in question is very very long, which this isn't). --Camembert
 * I believe this was done by Charles Matthews prior to protecting the page. 4.63.108.33 20:09, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The merit is that the number-series articles are trivia. This isn't. It's as celebrated in its field as Greta Garbo saying 'I want to be alone', or something comparable; it encapsulates a person. I happen to know the field, so I can say that quite confidently. There is no particular reason for 1729 (number) to be there, apart from this, anyway. Charles Matthews 20:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Ditto. It's the number theory equivalent of the "Shot Heard Round the World" or Babe Ruth calling his homer. Revolver 04:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * So you want to remove something non-trivial from one of the number articles so they all stay, in your view, trivial? I disagree, though there should definitely be one or more redirects to make sure that all ways the number is known end up at the same place. Jamesday 19:19, 20 Mar 2004

(UTC)


 * You're missing the point. The reason the anecdote is nontrivial is because of its anecdotal nature, nothing to do with 1729 itself. As a math person, I certainly think 1729 is an interesting number, but I'm biased, and I find a lot of numbers interesting. The point is, you can look in the EoIS of something, and find out something interesting about almost any integer less than 10,000 mathematically, if you want to. In that sense, 1729 isn't that much more interesting than others. Again, what you are asking to do is the same logic that would redirect an article about 7-11 back to the articles 7 (number) and 11 (number) simply because 7-11 has the numbers 7 and 11 in its name, or redirecting B-52 to 52 (number) for the same reason. The number 1729 is a part of the anecdote, but that's not what the issue is about. Revolver 00:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since I haven't been involved in this "war", and since this is how I also pay the rent, maybe I can offer some suggestions,


 * The anecdote certainly deserves its own article. The Garbo quote is very apt. Garbo's quote is culturally relevant because it was one of the first famous self-commentaries on the nature of mass fame itself. Also, it's well-known among film buffs. It also has the side story of the distinction, (misunderstanding?) that she really said "I want to be LEFT alone", and how this one word changes the meaning and the associated commentary on self. The 1729 anecdote shares all these. I first remember hearing of it in high school through the grapevine. The anecdote is culturally relevant -- not just for being well-known in the field, but because it is the perfect encapsulation of number theorists' (and mathematicians' in general) fascination with collecting facts about natural numbers and using these facts as mental maps to make a landscape. If you don't believe me, ask a dozen number theorists what's the first thing they think of when they think of "28", and 9 out of 10 will quickly say "it's perfect". The story captures this fascination. Also, it has interesting side stories (the "least interesting number paradox", as well as the fact that Hardy almost certainly knew the properties of 1729 and said it to give a chance to raise Ramanujan's spirits while sick). It's not the same as listing its factorisation or equivalent expressions in Roman numberals or something.
 * What the anecdote article should be called, I'm not sure. Whatever it happens to be, though, I think there should be a disambiguation page for 1729 in general, i.e. I think 1729 itself should be a disambig page. There are at least 3 separate articles related to this number -- the year 1729 AD, the trivia-based number article, and the anecdote.
 * Then, redirects of any and all other expressions can be directed to where they should go.

My 2 cents. Revolver 04:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts:
 * I learned that "Hardy-Ramanujan numbers" was another name for "taxicab numbers", acquiring the latter name in an article about the anecdote (posing some further problems regarding taxicab numbers). I see that some of the sources Anthony lists use "H-R number" as singular...  In any case, the term "taxicab number" is actually used among my theory friends; the longer name only for style points.  An article about this [type of] property (and its later extensions in number theory) is not about the number 1729.
 * Conclusion: "taxicab number" and "Hardy-Ramanujan number" should both take you to the same page, say "taxicab number". Which of these two names is picked doesn't matter terribly much; both names will appear in the first sentence.  It should not be a page with 1729 in the title.
 * 1729 is in fact an interesting number for other reasons. It should have its own area somewhere in WP, where it can have a number-template, link to Carmichael number, e, and taxicab number (as the primary example of one), as well as to the year and relevant cultural trivia.
 * Idea: In accordance with what we've done for the 200s & 300s, perhaps there should be a 1000s page where a few notable numbers in that range could be listed -- oh look, it's existed for a few weeks already. So 1729 doesn't need its own page right now. If it starts to noticeably dominate this article with its properties, it can get its own page later.
 * The anecdote about Hardy and Ramanujan should go on the page about those numbers ("taxicab number"). Other history regarding that story can go there also.
 * The brainteaser about interesting and uninteresting numbers has nothing to do with 1729. If we have a place for brainteasers (are there others in WP?), this is certainly a famous one, and can have its own page.  Note that the Hardy-Ramanujan discussion isn't the same as the "all numbers are interesting" discussion.  Hardy says "I'm afraid this license-plate number wasn't very interesting", and Ramanujan replies, "Actually, look at this remarkable property: ..."  He does not reply, "Ahh, but its very uninterestingness has made it interesting!" +sj+ 10:56, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Vote
OK, everyone's had plenty of time to air their opinions. Shall we take a vote?

Poll Closed
 * Now, 13:34, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC), the pages in question are all unprotected and we can close this poll and implement the changes. &mdash; Sverdrup


 * How are we going to implement the changes? As you can see, the edit war continues after the unprotection. Arvindn 14:23, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Following the poll, edit wars are illegitimate; but can't do much more than ask the individuals warring to get a grip of themselves. It seems to me the pages 1729 (number) and Interesting number paradox are stable, though. &mdash; Sverdrup 14:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Relevant pages

 * 1729 (number)
 * 1729 (anecdote)
 * Hardy-Ramanujan number
 * Hardy Ramanujan number
 * interesting and uninteresting numbers
 * interesting number paradox
 * taxicab number

Discussion pages

 * Talk:1729 (number)
 * Talk:Interesting and uninteresting numbers

Splitting

 * All in one page: Wik, Jamesday
 * One for the number and one for the interesting number thing:&mdash; Sverdrup, Anthony DiPierro (first choice), Andre Engels (with the anecdote in the number page)
 * Three pages: Arvindn, Anthony DiPierro (second choice), Charles Matthews, Revolver, User:PrimeFan, Ryan_Cable Numerao
 * Whatever:
 * Other (specify):
 * Dysprosia (Leave it as it is now).
 * AndrewKepert Delete the lot and let everyone go back to doing something useful. Yes, I wrote the original version of the page, including the H-R anecdote and the pseudo-paradox (but not "Hair" - I missed that one!).  It was light-hearted, in the spirit of Martin Gardner's account.  The history of the page since then is an embarrassment to all concerned.  I couldn't believe it when it started showing up on disputes, vfd, wik-vs-adp,...  Put a six-month block on the page being created.  Ban all pedians currently on the edit list from ever editing it again.
 * The page 'for' 1729 already exists: 1000s. One separate page on taxicab numbers is called for.  If the "interesting/uninteresting numbers" brainteaser is deemed encyclopedic, it needs a separate page, as it is unrelated. +sj+ 10:58, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)

Comments: I think taxicab number can be written and sustained as a third page, however I don't think there is enough content yet to do that. The Hardy-Ramanujan number is 1729, so it seems inappropriate to split that. Anthony DiPierro 15:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Even the title of an article "Hardy-Ramanujan number" should be disambig. You are correct, that name is often used to refer specifically to 1729 as its role as the first "taxicab number" (least natural number expressible in n ways as sum of 2 cubes. However, the resource "Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences" (one of the most authoritative sources) gives "Hardy-Ramanujan number" as an acceptable alternative term for "taxicub number" in the sense above. I think what Charles was getting at about being hesitant at calling 1729 "the" H-R # is that the whole concept of these sequences, expressing integers as sums of powers, how many ways, the least number in the distinct number of ways, etc., if one that could easily be generalised (and almost certainly has been generalised) into some kind of macroscopic function, depending on different parameters involved, and it would make perfect sense for someone to call these general types of sequences or numbers "H-R #'s". At least, that would seem natural to me. Revolver 23:44, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of content that can be supplied. The point about 'trivia' is that one can always argue both sides of the 'encyclopedic' debate; that's more-or-less what trivia means. The anecdote isn't trivia. The 'interesting number' thing is (variation on a well-known theme). The 'taxicab number' bit is a minor facet of the Waring problem business, which contains many such aspects. Munging it all together doesn't make for a better encyclopedia, and neither does arguing from a recreational mathematics POV. Charles Matthews 19:40, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * We haven't got articles on every integer of this magnitude. We have an article on 1729 for one reason: it is (this is as you all know, disputed :-) interesting. If we don't include the H-R thing in 1729(number), there is no point to have the article at all. &mdash; Sverdrup 21:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * AFAIC the anecdote could go to the Ramanujan page. A page like 1729 (number) sets out to be a node; some such nodes are going to be relative failures, but in wiki terms that's not a big deal. But I don't feel a 'number' page has any 'claim' on material. Charles Matthews 09:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That is certainly true, but I have a hard time seeing how an anecdote is worthy of its own encyclopedia article. Anthony DiPierro 14:16, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That is certainly true; but uninformed opinions carry less weight, no? Charles Matthews 09:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to imply that my opinion is uninformed? anthony (see warning) 10:11, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't deny that there is plenty of content that can be supplied about taxicab numbers. However, I'd like to see that content actually supplied before creating a page on it. Anthony DiPierro 21:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

One page because they are all about the same thing: 1729 and it's significance in mathematics, culture and whatever else it's significant to. Jamesday 19:26, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That's ridiculous, so, you'd have an article on 7 that talks about prime numbers, Mersenne numbers, lucky numbers, 24-hour convenience stores, and the World Series all in the same article, all because these issues are about the number "7"? Revolver 00:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What does have to do with 1729? Anthony DiPierro 19:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Title

 * 1729 (number): Wik Jamesday &mdash; Sverdrup User:PrimeFan (for page on 1729 according to WikiProject Numbers, that is, full discussion of all known mathematical properties of 1729, and selected cultural associations) Numerao
 * 1000 (number): for page on all numbers in the 1000s w/o their own page (cf 200 (number)). Page already exists; 1729 info already on it. +sj+ 11:13, 2004 Mar 21 (UTC)
 * The purpose of listing selected numbers from 1001 - 1999 on the page on 1000 is to see which of them merit their own articles. In my opinion, 1729 merits its own article. PrimeFan 16:35, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1729 (anecdote):
 * Hardy-Ramanujan number: User:PrimeFan (for page only on H-R property of 1729, or perhaps redirect to 1729) Numerao (as redirect to 1729, since its the only HR number, if i understand correctly)
 * Taxicab number: User:PrimeFan (for the concept of taxicab numbers, in an article similar to Wolfram MathWorld's) +sj+ (more general than "H-R number", according to Anthony/Wolfram)(for this class of numbers, and the Hardy & Ramanujan anecdote) Anthony DiPierro Numerao
 * Whatever: Arvindn
 * Depends on how the split is made: Anthony DiPierro Revolver
 * Hold vote until after the content of the pages has stabilized: Anthony DiPierro Revolver
 * How can the content of the page be stabilized if the edit war between Anthony and Wik continues? It would be nice if both of them backed off, so that others could edit these pages, letting them evolve naturally and unconcerned with the Anthony/Wik rivalry. PrimeFan 16:35, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Wik is limited to 3 reverts per day. A more important question is how can the content of the page be stabilized if the page is left protected.  In many of the cases I wasn't even involved in the edit war. For instance, look at the history regarding the split.  I really don't care how the page is split.  What I do care is that we keep all this information somewhere (Wik has been redirecting to the protected page which doesn't even contain most of the information).  Anthony DiPierro 23:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right, the page protection is the more important question. I should've looked at the page histories a little more before making that statement I made above. PrimeFan 02:03, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * can we have someone add the apropriate interwiki links to 1729 (number) please? Numerao 22:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I vote for 1729 (the Hardy-Ramanujan anecdote on the minimum integer having two different expressions as sume of two cubes, being the number of the taxi Ramanujan took to visit Hardy in his illness). I may be wrong but this addresses all the controversies in one title. Pfortuny 15:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)