Talk:2,147,483,647

YouTube
"Google later admitted that this was a joke."

That links to an unconfirmed CNET report. Google's communications team confirmed for me yesterday that it was actually true! YouTube had to upgrade to 64-bit to handle the view count of "Gangnam Style." I wrote about it on Quartz here:

https://qz.com/1005230/chess-coms-ios-app-inadvertently-broke-the-mathematical-limits-of-older-apple-devices/ this is fake info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:8B01:AE40:456B:5B09:88C3:BE3B (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 2,147,483,647 is the number of a glitch on a car on a video game.
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm8BIyGYTB0 23.180.64.218 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Chess.com
The iOS app for Chess.com hit the 32-bit limit of 2,147,483,647 on June 10, 2017. For 32-bit iPhones and iPads made before mid-2013, the app stopped working. There are more details in the Quartz article I linked to above:

https://qz.com/1005230/chess-coms-ios-app-inadvertently-broke-the-mathematical-limits-of-older-apple-devices/

Question
2147483647 can also be a phone number. 214-748 (3647) LoganDark 10:20, Sept 4, 2014 (ULT User's Local Time) — Preceding undated comment added 17:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this page really necessary? Jgalea84 01:27, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "For the year 2147483647 AD, see 2147483647." Gee... ugen64 01:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh c'mon, it's gonna be deleted in a few days, might as well have some fun while it's here. Anthony DiPierro 01:22, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

 * Two billion one hundred forty-seven million four hundred eighty-three thousand six hundred forty-seven. Not a notable number. I withdraw my nomination of this as Tim has now added something to the article to suggest it may be notable in some small way. I don't care if it's deleted or not now. Angela.
 * Mildly cute idea, but DELETE. Unnecessary. Moncrief 10:47, Feb 21 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely redundant as is. Get rid of it. Dysprosia 10:48, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought we had agreed to move these pages to XXX (number)?? Mintguy (T) 10:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: then move the only useful bit of info (the largest numbers stored on 32-bit) to the article that has something to do with computing memory.
 * Delete all number pages. Anthony DiPierro 16:29, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Don't know what the right thing to do about number pages is, but we should be selective. This number is not famous or notable, even to most nerds, when expressed in words in decimal notation. (Nightmare: someone programs a bot to write articles about each number... "54 is the largest number which, when expressed in Roman numerals, is the first name of a Swedish actress...") Dpbsmith 16:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 54 Ullmann, that's cute. --Palapala 17:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Norwegian, by the way.Kosebamse 11:30, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * No one has any intention to make a number article robot. See Wikiproject Numbers. PrimeFan 22:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only interesting part of it seems to be Tim's addition (2^31-1), which surely can be of much more service somewhere else...? --Palapala 17:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absurd. Sir Paul 18:19, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Orphan -- but its relation to the upper limit of 32-bit CPUs like the Pentium is informative. No vote. Davodd 19:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maybe put on a page of important numbers. Jacob1207 21:25, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. -Branddobbe 22:58, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Elf-friend 23:20, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stick content on a page of "interesting numbers, in brief" where people can put numeric trivia and associations until there are enough for a single number to merit its own page.  And yes, XXX (number)] is a much better idea, for those numbers that are of interest.
 * Keep. Mildly interesting number. Many millions of people are aware of its significance, so if it were a person or place it would romp in. Andrewa 05:09, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- but make it a redirect to 32-bit and move the currently useful content (2^31 and scientific notation paragraphs to that page). RedWolf 06:20, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fairly significant number. BL 10:37, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is no longer an orphan ;-) -- Egil 14:08, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Relocate. This could be merged into a prime numbers page. Oberiko 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I just realized this was the number I threatened to make on Talk:List_of_numbers/Deletion. And it might even survive! Anthony DiPierro 06:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * I reluctantly vote to delete. I'm pretty sure the useful content on this article is already duplicated elsewhere, that it is highly unlikely someone will search for this number specifically, and that there is very little to say about this particular number besides data type size. PrimeFan 22:20, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! It is conceivable that people will search for this number. Ought to create -2147483648 (number) also Pengo 02:50, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Move the entire contents (yes, all 3 lines of text) to 32-bit. Humus sapiens 22:33, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Voting ended.


 * RELOCATE!! Put it in 32-bit and prime Noone 08:54, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recommend merging with Zsigmondy number once that article's written, and redirect from here. - Hephaestos|&#167; 03:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What to do with the number name
The word "billion" is ambiguous. Any comments on what to do with the number name in this article?? 66.245.79.55 22:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Resurrection
A new article (2147483647) was begun on February 2009, and progressively extended. Redirecting to that, pending a move by admins. Radagast3 (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
This page should probably be at 2147483647 (number), which is currently a redirect page. Radagast3 (talk) 00:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Number as most common phone number
The source cited for this number being the most common phone number on the web is not a reliable source for a fact of this nature as it is an unverified claim. Should adjust the sentence so it doesn't make that claim. CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 03:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It is also no longer available. I got a 404 when trying to access it on 2012-07-24  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.182.1.4 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Additionally, it is utterly unscientific. They never look at the frequency of other numbers. A 555 number may be more popular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.112.172.130 (talk) 10:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2147483647 (number) per informal guidelines at WP:WikiProject Numbers and WP:AT Consistency criteria Mike Cline (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

2147483647 → 2147483647 (number) – This article is NOT about a year millions of years in the future, is it?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, per project (Numbers and Years) guidelines, but it's not going to happen. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's appropriate for years AD to acquire base number positions by default, since they clearly aren't the primary topic for many of the places they occupy. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment FWIW, 20000 has redirected to 20000 (number) since four years ago. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral, it makes some sense to be consistent and include '(number)' in the title of all number articles, since for the majority it is necessary. However, in this case there is unlikely to be confusion since 2147483647 is clearly more commonly associated with the number 2147483647 than the year 2147483647 or any other meaning. For round numbers like 10000000 (number) this is not as likely the case. Gap9551 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citation 4 1867
Citation 4 claims that 2,147,483,647 was the largest known prime until 1867. However, the article Largest known prime number claims that 67,280,421,310,721 was discovered as a prime number in 1855. 76.179.99.155 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As the article now says, 67,280,421,310,721 was found and claimed to be prime in 1855, but no proof was provided for the claim (although it really is prime); a publication of a new prime with a proof of primality had to wait till 1867. Double sharp (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hexadecimal Number
The largest hexadecimal should be FFFFFFFF not 7FFFFFFF 49.184.62.181 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7FFFFFFF is the largest signed 32-bit integer, as stated in the article. FFFFFFFF would be the largest if unsigned, but here it would represent −1. Certes (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"(214) 748-3647" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=(214)_748-3647&redirect=no (214) 748-3647] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)