Talk:85 (number)

Untitled

to elaborate on my disputed edit previous edits stated correctly that 85 can be expressed as a sum of two squares in two ways, 85= 9^2 + 2^2 = 7^2 + 6^2; I added that is the "the lowest number that can be expressed as the sum of distinct, non trivial (>1) squares". Because this is what makes the previous point interesting - 50 is the lowest number that is the sum of 2 squares in 2 ways(25+25,49+1), 65 the lowest number the sum of two distinct squares in two ways(16+49,64+1), and 85 the lowest number that is the sum of two distinct, non trivial squares in two ways

The second point on length of the hypotenuse of 4 pythagorean triangles is separate (but similar enough to be in the same para) as it relate to the squares summing to the square of 85. I could list them and elaborated as to why this is (moderately) significant. Please don't do quick deletions of what is a serious edit — if not clear raise on talk pages.Marqaz (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-trivial" is inappropriate, as it's not normally used in that sense for squares. 0 is trivial, 1 is not. The second point might be appropriate; I'd have to think about it, further. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant deletion of a good faith edit by a named user is both poor etiquette, and contrary to policy WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM — you should try to resolve rather than act unilaterally, particularly if you disagree on a subjective point (i.e. what is interesting/important enough for inclusion). My change was intended to make a not very interesting point slightly more significant. If you disagree over terminology, then suggest alternatives rather than delete the whole edit. And if you have to think about it, you certainly shouldn't delete. If we can't reach agreement on after all what is a very minor edit, then we should seek some user input. Marqaz (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is fixed. The first number which can be represented as a sum of squares greater than 1 in more than one way is only slightly more notable than the first number which can be repreented as a sum of squares greater than 2 in more than one way, etc. The comment on Pythagorean triplets, if accurate, is probably notable. However, your insistance on adding trivia to the article is not constructive.

The relevant forum is WT:MATH. You are welcome to add your comments there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated my edit, amended to see if we can get some form of consensus. It is not for your to unilaterally declare the problem fixed — which is very arrogant I must say, nor is it for you to act as the sole arbiter of what is "notable". In my opinion it is moderately notably — it about the only thing that makes 85 interesting IMHO, that it is lowest number that is the sum of two proper (i.e. >1) squares in two ways. Note too that my edit is only a qualifier of an existing fact, so should not be seen as requiring the same level of notableness as an entirely new property. Your insistence on deleting a good faith edits on the basis of personal opinion of notableness is destructive and contrary to core Wikipedia as outlined in WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.Marqaz (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my edits were an attempt to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Yours have been an attempt to reinstate the same material without "fixing" (or acknowledging) a problem.

Perhaps WP:3O or WT:NUMBER would be appropriate places to seek additional comment. As it stands, WP:BRD suggests that the material should remain out until discussion reaches a consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accept that — you have provided no justification for your repeated edits other that your subjective opinion that they are not notable enough. WP:BRD clearly states "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes" which seems to apply here. Please provide proper justification, this page is not overlong or overcomplex and there are not primary policy conflicts. WP is meant to encourage contributions, yet you seem very ready to reject them. I have attempted to discuss and be constructive, but you seem to be strongly drawn to deleting first. I also find it inconsistent — being a decagonal number is barely notably IMHO (but I am not going to delete it just becuase I think it lacks notability), and the comment on Fermat primes to me seems poorly founded, has nothing to do with primes, and lacking notably but escapes your editors finger. Incidentally, do you have any comments on that before I edit it? Marqaz (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide some justification for inclusion. I'm not sure about the Fermat primes one, either; I suspect it needs to go. The product of any number of consecutive Fermat numbers is a repunit in the base one less than the smallest one, but I'm not sure why that needs to be said. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly tried to justify the point but have been dismissed. Put in this way as there an infinite, and probably fairly dense, set of numbers with this property (sum of two squares in two different ways) - as the first example with all numbers greater than one (i.e with proper/non trivial squares, 85 is arguably the "best" example of a number with this property. Furthermore put in the context of 85 as a rather "boring" number, it is of some note. Please provide adequate justification before undoing again — something more substantive than that in your subjective opinion it is not notable. In view of our ongoing impasse I have referred it to the WP:dispute resolution noticeboard, partly to understand which policies should apply.Marqaz (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Hello, I am Solarra and I am here as part of the dispute resolution process. I have overlooked all of the edits and done considerable research on the subject including perusing results here and here and having looked at the facts, I have to side with Marqaz in this case. 85 is in fact the result of 9^2 + 2^2 = 7^2 + 6^2 and several universities have it displayed prominently in the "Special properties of numbers" sections of various math themed sites including the fact that this is the lowest integer to have this property. This page is dedicated to valid mathematical facts that are not commonly known, if you look here the number 4 lists it is the smallest squared prime for example. The fact should be included in the page :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please do not add the edit back to the article until all parties have had a chance to respond :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the first 10 references in either google search mention the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sum of two squares update

There has still been no evidence presented that a number being a sum of two squares in two different ways, with all squares greater than 1, is an interesting property to anyone but the original poster. (I know @Solarra: said he/she found references, but none of them checked out for me.) I'm not going to revert, but I am retagging. The sequence of "numbers expressible as a sum of two squares greater than 1 in more than one way", which starts 85, 125, is not in Sloan, so Sloane shouldn't be used as a reference for the fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is an interesting properties. Just to be clear: I don't think it would be interesting to know which is the least number being a sum of two squares in two different ways, with all squares greater than 2: but 1 is a kind of throwaway. --.mau. ✉ 08:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Bingo names -

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) 23:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]