Talk:224 (number)

formerly lowest uninteresting number
I recently [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=224_%28number%29&diff=636941025&oldid=619913134 added content] that was deleted and which was essentially this (with the ref element commented out here):

According to mathematician and philosopher Alex Bellos, all numbers are interesting and, if any were boring, a candidate for the lowest boring number would be 224 because it was, at the time, "the lowest number not to have its own page on Wikipedia".[3]

References

3. Bellos, Alex (June 2014). The Grapes of Math: How Life Reflects Numbers and Numbers Reflect Life. illus. The Surreal McCoy (1st Simon & Schuster hardcover ed.). N.Y.: Simon & Schuster. pp. 238 & 319 (quoting p. 319). ISBN 978-1-4516-4009-0. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=224_%28number%29&action=history Between November, 2011, and July, 2014], this Wikipedia article was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=224_%28number%29&oldid=460352983 only a redirect].

Interesting numbers are a subject of study in mathematics and if all numbers except one particular number are interesting then that one is also interestng, as the only uninteresting number. Apparently, 224 was once thought to be uninteresting, although it no longer is. That history is, I think, due weight. Arguably, it is trivial and, arguably, the endnote could be rewritten to avoid the self-reference, although in this case I think it's legitimate and is, at any rate, limited to the endnote. The deletion appears to have been based on a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=224_%28number%29&diff=next&oldid=636941025 misunderstanding].

I'll wait a week before editing for this.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You used an internally flawed, circular argument, at the time, "the lowest number not to have its own page on Wikipedia". No matter how it is referenced, it claims notability using Wikipedia as a source, and as a notability standard. Materialscientist (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * is an audio source of Bellos mentioning that 219 used to be the lowest whole number too boring to have its own Wikipedia page, then going on to say that 224 was its categorical replacement. Somebody should let him know he'll always be one step behind the 'pedia. Haha. &mdash; tbc (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The notability here is surely that Alex Bellos would frequently say "224 is the lowest number not to have its own wikipedia page", not that wikipedia is itself notable? The only reason I have ever even thought about 224 is because of Alex Bellos. I certainly think this should be included with the grapes of math reference. Wikiditm (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't this have a link to Interesting number paradox? -- Resuna (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)