Talk:1000 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numbers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated C-class, High-priority)
WikiProject Mathematics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mathematics rating:
C Class
High Priority
 Field: General

The procedure for the articles on the numbers 200, 300, through 900, was based on a procedure that User:GUllman practiced with articles on the numbers 20, 30 through 90, of including at the end stubs for the non-round numbers for the numbers that followed (i.e., the article on 300 has at its end stubs for the articles on 301 to 399). The stubs are grown there until they grow big enough to merit their own articles.

When we come to the thousands, we find that fewer numbers in this range will grow big enough to merit their own articles. In fact, many of them might not merit stubs at all. So there will only be extremely short stubs for selected numbers in the 1000s. Some of these will grow to merit their own articles. Many will not. PrimeFan 1426 3:04 mklo-- (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Feb 2004 [opk]

Bogus Reference?[edit]

koouy's there a reference to "Meehan, Eileen R., Why TV is not our fault : television programming, viewers, and who's really in control Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005"?

I was going to point out the same. --Ben T/C 14:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a reference to 1200 being the sample size in Nielsen ratings. Found by brute force - searching edit by edit to find the one where it was added. (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article for chilia-[edit]

To make sure you know this, chilia- is the Greek numerical prefix for 1000. The Latin equivalent is mill-. I've been checking to see if there are enough chilia words for Wikipedia to have an article on this prefix. Can anyone think of any?? 14:28, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Chiliad (a group of 1000 things; a millennium), chiliagon, chiliahedron, chiliarch (the commander of 1000 men), chiliasm (millenarianism), chiliast, chiliomb (a sacrifice of 1000). I didn't think of these - I looked them up - and I left out the obsolete ones. --Heron 15:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
kilo- itself is based on this Greek word, with a simplified spelling. In Italian it is still chilometro and Latinists use chiliometrum. —Muke Tever 17:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, what is the reason for the different spelling?? 18:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well the form "kilo-" was, I believe, coined by the French. Presumably this was to make a standard pronunciation; chi- can be read several different ways across the languages of Europe, e. with [tS] in English, [S] in French, [cC] in Spanish, [k] in Italian, [C] in German... and French doesn't have the [x] of the original. As for the second syllable, different languages will read -lio- with either one or two syllables... This is purely speculation, of course, but not unheard of; similar things have happened, just check the history of the word gas. —Muke Tever 21:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
From the OED: "An arbitrary derivative of Gr. χίλιοι a thousand, introduced in French in 1795, at the institution of the Metric system..." It appears that the precise reason for using the k is unknown. I'm not sure the French had cross-language portability in mind in 1795, but it is a posibility, I suppose. —Tkinias 10:56, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Maybe they just didn't want another prefix starting with c since they also had centi-. Jimp 5Dec05

Docuan table messed up for some reason[edit]

For some reason, the Docuan table is messed up. I tried to fix it but my fix didn't work. I think the articles for 2k through 9k have the same problem. PrimeFan 21:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why does 1023 redirect here?[edit]

Wyu Huh?

Because there's not enough that can be said about it to make it worth giving it its own page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, and contrast with 1729 or 5040. sjorford (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

100000 cards game[edit]

There is also a cards game called 1000. It's from Russia, but i have no further information about this game 22:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If we allowed humor in the mainspace[edit]

1004 - smallest number not discussed in Wikipedia... D'oh!

Random832 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Numbers with A in them[edit]

The claim that the letter A does not appear in numbers less than 1,000 is simply not true; what about one hundred and one, one hundred and two, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPNic (talkcontribs) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've often wondered myself why people insist on repeating that "fact" about "one thousand" being the lowest positive integer to contain the letter A when "one hundred and one" is considerably lower. However I think I may know the answer. According to this page: 101 (number), it is not pronounced with the word "and" in American English. Americans, apparently, pronounce it "one hundred one", in which case the fact about the letter A is indeed true. In British English, though, we do include the "and" and therefore the fact is NOT true. Can an American confirm that that is indeed how that number is said in the US? --Stenun (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
im an american (a californian), and i have heard and used the words "hundred and one" "one hundred and one" "a hundred and one", "one hundred one", so i suggest they all be included as variants. i really dont know which is most common. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And in some cases ...[edit]

The article contains the text "... [1001] can in some cases be greater than 1000". I'm reluctant to delete this, because I assume it is there for a reason, but is that wishful thinking, or does the statement have more than just its trivial meaning? Certainly, if there is any reason on Earth for the existance of the text, it needs to be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsg (talkcontribs) 11:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Selected numbers in the thousands[edit]

There, in my opinion are too many 'Selected numbers in the thousands'. Most individuals couldn't care less about ALL those Mertens function zero's, put those on a separate page.

O Milesimo?[edit]

Why not add the legendary footballer Pele's one thousandth goal in this article? I did, for starters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Why add it? It certainly doesn't meet the guidelines at WP:NUM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)