Jump to content

Talk:1729 (anecdote)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles Matthews (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 20 March 2004 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

[1], [2], [3], [4]. 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 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)

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)

Vote

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

Relevant pages

Discussion pages

Splitting

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)

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)

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)

What does [5] have to do with 1729? Anthony DiPierro 19:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Title

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1729_(anecdote)&oldid=2847940"