Talk:23 (number)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Happy number 23????
The number 23 is NOT happy!
23²=529
5²+2²+9²=110
1²+1²+0²=2
2²=4
4²=16
1²+6²=37
3²+7²=58
5²+8²=89
8²+9²=145
1²+4²+5²=42
4²+2²=20
2²+0²=4
Please feedback if i'm wrong or not!!! [email removed]
I don't think it words like that - isn't it that: 23 -> 2²+3² = 13 13 -> 1²+3² = 10 10 -> 1²+0² = 1
Since 23 is listed on 'The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences' I think we can trsut this fact. --Neo 15:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes you're right, I just see it!
[edit] Headline text
23 is not the smallest prime that is not part of a twinprime. 2 is the smallest prime that is not part of a twinprime. 2 is the smallest even prime that is not part of a twinprime (this one is definitely and highly true). So, 23 is the smallest odd prime that is not part of a twinprime.
Umm...if you read the twin prime page, you'll see that 2 and 3 are the first and only prime twins that are only one apart. Maybe you are under a false impression of the definition of a twin prime. FruitMart07 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] morons
"The sacred number (along with 5) of Eris, goddess of discord, according to the Principia Discordia; it is the number of the Illuminati."
Do we neeed further proof that morons are not only allowed to edit Wikipedia, but their work is allowed to stand?
Try a serious discussion of National Socialist Germany, and the Wikipedia Jews shut you down. Make an inane and silly statement showing you believe in a make believe religion from an irrelevant work of fiction, and it becomes one of the top things to say about the number 23.
- I don't think it helps your cause to claim that a mythical Hebrew cadre is censoring your work. Akbeancounter 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- ->
[Bill White]
-but you have to admit, 23 is a cool number dude
If we excised all references to make believe religions, there wouldn't be any references to any of them left.
[edit] Obvious
I love Wikipedia and I think the articles should be as thorough as possible. However isn't 23 (twenty-three) is the natural number following 22 and preceding 24 stating the obvious?
i agree. a kindergartener could figure that out.
[edit] integers and cubing
Is not 23 = 23 + 23 + 23 + (-1)3 + 4 * 03, and thus the sum of 8 cubes? That said, perhaps the authors meant Natural Numbers or the set of all non-negative integers. — Xoder|✆ 05:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
- "In 1939, Dickson proved that the only integers requiring nine positive cubes are 23 and 239. Wieferich proved that only 15 integers require eight cubes: 15, 22, 50, 114, 167, 175, 186, 212, 231, 238, 303, 364, 420, 428, and 454 (Sloane's A018889). " [1] — Clarknova 05:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
There are two closely related binary Golay codes, one of length 23 and one of length 24, the latter obtained by adding a parity bit to the former; see Golay Code at Mathworld. Our article on the Golay Code should be rewritten to better reflect this. (For some reason I'm being automatically logged out before every edit right now -- this is User:4pq1injbok.) 68.146.166.106 18:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] First line
Maybe it's just that it's late or I'm an idiot, but I just can't make head nor tail of this sentence:
- In English, its spelled out name is the smallest with eleven letters.
What does this mean? There are plenty of numbers that have fewer than eleven letters. The only other interpretation I can gather is that it means that the smallest possible spelling of the number incorporates 11 letters, which seems similarly nonsensical.
Please, help a doddering fool out... Dylan 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that, I just came here to see if there was an explanation. At the least, a comma is missing. I assume that 23 is the smallest integer with an eleven letter long name in English. It seems reasonable enough, if pointless. I'll change the article now for clarity. --Vijay 19:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 9/11
The line:
- The individual numbers in the date 9/11/2001 add up to 23
- Is incorrect. 9+11+2+1 does equal 23, but the statement makes no sense when stating 'the individual numbers'. 9+1+1+2+1 is only 14. Darkness Productions 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- And so, I have deleted it. No need to discuss stuff like this; if it's obviously wrong, just delete it. -- Slowmover 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tetris
"Tetris pieces have a total of 23 distinct orientations."
Is that right? The square has one, the single bar and s/z shaped ones have 2 each, and the L/J/T shaped ones have four, which adds up to 19 for me.
[edit] why doesnt this article say anything about all the mythology surrounding the number 23?
there is a whole subculture of people who are obsessed with the number 23. why isnt that mentioned? it states jim carrey as being obsessed with it, but he is really just a part of that subculture, thats mostly what the number 23 movie is about, and look up the film 23five.
Can we just delete all this "so and so adds up to 23" stuff on here? I notice that on the page for 24, you don't see a ton of stuff saying that something happened in 1995, and 1+9+9+5 adds up to 24! SO WEIRD MAN! If that belongs up there, can I add "I was born on 8/28/85 in Mississippi, which was admitted to the union in 1817. 8+2+8+8+5=31. 23 is the 9th prime number, and 31+9=40. 1+8+1+7=17, and 40-17=23!!!" I think that's just as encyclopedic as most of the other trivia on there. RevTarthpeigust 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Or how about-NAFTA went into effect in 1994. 1+9+9+4=23! How weird!
- Probably because previous to this Jim Carrie movie there was no subculture over the number 23. I've never heard of such a thing and can find no credible sources. If you have sources or references to people being concerned about the number 23 please cite them. Content must be verifiable and I see little past the mathematics section that is verifiable or relevant. --66.129.44.244 21:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Much as I find the entries about random occurences of numbers annoying, there *is* an established mythology for 23 that predates the movie 23. In particular it played an important role in the conspiracy theories of the Illuminatus! Trilogy and that series of books has had a wide (if underground and cultish) influence on some aspects of popular culture, probably including the movie 23. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sigfpe (talk • contribs) 02:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- Then this needs a section with citations on the mythology of 23. The idea that the number has significance should be covered by such a section. Examples that seem to attempt to prove its significance would do better in another article altogether. AmberAlert1713 07:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- There actually is a subculture about the number 23, and has been for a long time. If you google the 23 enigma, you'll find lots of links and site and people who will tell you all about it. Sites that have been up for a long time, way before the 'The Number 23' was thought up. A lot of people are actually upset about this movie because now everytime we say anything about 23 everyone will reference this new movie. Actually if you read one of the latest Time mags (Feb 20th) Jim Carrey talks about the 23 complex he had before the movie. His daughter even has a 23 tat. There was actually an incredibly good 23 enigma site on Wikipedia but it looks like they deleted everything? Just wanted people to know that this has been a thing for lots of people for a long time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.128.1.3 (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sounds like a fantastic idea. Please feel free to make a separate, well-referenced page regarding the significance of the number 23, rather than the number itself. -AmberAlert1713 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
What's all this about the name Timothy Paul Devine being satanic (stated in the main page)? Explanations anyone?
[edit] Archbishop
Under Religion, the article says that archbishop of Paris is named André Vingt-Trois. If I'm not mistaken, his last name translates to twenty three. That should be clarified in the article. FruitMart07 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pres. JFK?
Why is this in here? if you added 11 for november it throws it off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toastthemost (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] In other fields
Can these be be separated into the catagories above. I think a lot of these also deal with science and history, and a new entertainment catagory would be good. D4S 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Astronomy?
I would do this myself but I'm new to this editing thing, and I don’t want to step on any toes, but I don't think that the fact that 23 was Hitler's favorite number, though interesting as it is, belongs in the astronomy section. Just thought that I should point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.128.19 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I have to agree. That comment is both unsourced and has absolutely nothing to do with astronomy. 149.43.252.6 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Movie Spammers - No references
This page is getting abused with nothing but crap since some movie about 23 was announced. There are several hundred edits of this page just in the past 60 days. Most other number pages take years to get that level of edits.
There is one single reference right now for the hundred or so unverified trivia items presented on this page.
Can someone add the unverified references template to this page so people know not to trust the information presented? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.44.244 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree. This is one page you should not trust without verifying all the data for yourself. People should know that. AmberAlert1713 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 23/7 estimation of pi?
Not sure who failed mathematics here, but 22/7 is the estimation which gets closest to pi when dealing with smaller numbers. 22/7 = 3.142857 while pi is around 3.141593, a difference of just about 1/800th, close enough if you're just calculating the diameter of your new fish pond. 23/7 is way off.
ByteofKnowledge 15:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "23rdian"
i've heard of people becoming obsessed with #'s other than 23. is there a name for being obsessed with a number, finding it everywhere, etc.?
- Yeah. It's called schizophrenia. EvilCouch 11:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Bravo! Best retort I've heard all day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.73.199.69 (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Do the Maths!
I`m no mathematician or scientist but it`s true that number 23 is everywhere! Wether it has any significant meaning ... who knows?! But with a few simple sums you will see that many sequences of numbers - birth dates, names, even phone numbers, are all worked back to number 23.
- oh man! Numbers are everywhere! Did you know that the individual numbers in "13" add up to 4?... It blows my mind every time. And there are four letters in the word "four"! I'm starting a religion! AmberAlert1713 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Unverified Research" tag
I'm taking down the unverified research tag. It makes the page look ugly, and generally insults the average reader. Furthermore, anyone interested in editing pages should be able to figure out from the significant number of [citation needed] tags that the page has a problem. People attempting to use this page in a scholarly report or to make an argument really should look at every page on wikipedia as though it might have unverified research; if a fact anywhere isn't properly cited, it doesn't belong in scholarly work. I'm willing to hear arguments for the tag here or on my talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmberAlert1713 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC).
