Talk:31 (number)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.ngcic.org/
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 26 (number) on 2011-06-19 05:45:43, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

31 is spelled thirty-one or thirtyone[edit]

Either spelling is correct: thirty-one or thirtyone, as well as thirty-first or thirtyfirst. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 31 (number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo names -[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering removal[edit]

The section "in mathematics" as this assertion:

At 31, the Mertens function sets a new low of -4, a value which is not subceded until 110.

I'm not disagreeing with the accuracy, but I am questioning that it is interesting enough to deserve inclusion.

I'll preface this by saying that I've never heard of the Mertens function before. I skimmed the Wikipedia article but I don't have a good sense of how this function be useful. I interpret the statement as an assertion about the location of local minimums, but I don't have any sense of why the local minimums would be interesting much less their distribution. I've never run into the word subceded before, but it is clear what it means in context.

Several similar statements are also true:

  • At 3, the Mertens function sets a new low of -1, a value which is not subceded until 5
  • At 5, the Mertens function sets a new low of -2, a value which is not subceded until 13
  • At 13, the Mertens function sets a new low of -3, a value which is not subceded until 31

I don't believe we've asserted that these are interesting properties of three, five or 13, so why would the assertion about 31 be worthy of mention?

It might be mildly interesting if the statement were unique, and if local minimums were an important aspect of the use of this function but I think neither are true.

I propose removing it unless someone can explain why this is truly interesting and not just happenstance.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: I think the interest is that a certain conjecture on the growth of the Mertens function is equivalent to the more important Riemann hypothesis, but WT:WikiProject Mathematics should be able to give a more informed opinion. Certes (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Certes, While poking around, I did notice some interest in the zeros of the Mertens function, e.g. this site, which is consistent with your comment but I think it's still a stretch to say we care about local minima. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the OEIS for extrema of the Mertens function but, as you say, local minima are of marginal interest. Certes (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:31_(number)&oldid=1216576288"