Talk:177 (number)

Include properties on the number 177

I suggest we have the following properties for 177, since David Eppstein is warring my edits:

A Blum integer: 11th and less than 60 below 1000.
A Leyland number as there are very few below 1000.
A 60-gonal number as there are very few below 1000.
I added 177 as the sum of the three prime factors (41, 59, 71) whose product make the minimum faithful complex representation of the Monster group. This is not trivial, it is another set value of these digits. I.e. the group 2.B has a faithful representation under 96,256 dimensions, whose sum of digits is 196,560, the kissing number in 24 dimensions. Aliquot sums and sums of divisors are common properties of numbers, and 196,883 is a particularly important number within the monstrous moonshine as it is linked with the j-invariant under its 196,884 dimensional representation - if this is too OR then I am perfectly fine with not including it. It seems to me that David Eppstein just wants to remove "cruft" he doesn't like because, well, personally he doesn't like it. He removed plenty of other information like examples of .177 guns. It makes very little sense. People who come here and read these pages are often times not mathematicians, so yes, including information of numbers being odd, composite, and even semiprime, are important tidbits of information that inform people not well acquainted with mathematics.

These values are not unimportant. They define some of the characteristics of the number 177. To take out these properties leaves this number less notable. I am seeking mediation, as I have needed to continue reverting misguided edits by David Eppstein. He alone is not one to choose what goes on a page, or not; and neither am I. So if we can get proper input that would be great. Radlrb (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no interest in being a 60-gonal number. Every number is an x-gonal number for some x. 60-gonal is not an interesting or notable property. Blum integer is marginal, because there are many smaller Blum integers. Your Monster group property is original research, not supported by any source, and totally uninteresting (what is the mathematical significance of adding some of the prime factors of a group order?). You might as well start adding properties like 177=1+176, 177=2+175, 177=3+174, ...: all true, all uninteresting, all unsourced. Our number articles should focus on the interesting properties of their numbers. Your edits lack focus and are not interesting. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Did you know that the 24-dimensional Leech lattice is constructional using the ring of icosians? The Monster and baby monster themselves having links with the Leech lattice, and that all of the baby monster is a subgroup of the Monster group? As such, 2.B having a minimal dimensional representation of 96,256 is quite important, since the sum of its divisors equaling 196,560 is itself equal to the kissing number in 24 dimensions. If you don't see the connection, then you don't know enough about finite simple groups. That's fine, we don't put it in then.

However, that is purely speculation on your end that polygonal numbers or Blum numbers are unimportant, or worthy of inclusion as property, even if it has not been directly tied to other massive structures or algebraic forms. As I said, people are not aware of what properties numbers have, and including at least medium to largely important properties is necessary to give color to numbers. After all, we also want to provide a database of properties so that other mathematicians can use these pages as references. I am surprised you are being so incredibly anal about something so obvious in mathematics - we reach wherever we need to find connections; and this is a place to lay connections, even if not entirely interconnected. At least, intelligent people will think this way. This is not a page to show off what's most important, but to give a rounded understanding of the properties that numbers can have. If you do the opposite, then you do not fully show what these numbers are about, and you definitely rescind the encyclopedic nature of the article. Radlrb (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The monster group is obviously important. But what you have done, picking out some of the prime factors of its group order and adding them together appears to be mathematically meaningless manipulation and original research. The notability of the monster group does not make every monster-inspired napkin doodle notable. And no, we do not want to provide a database of properties. That is what OEIS does, much better. We want to provide encyclopedia articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And that is an unfortunate reality that is chosen by Wikipedia, since most normal people do not use OEIS or even know it exists. This shows me that you don't understand how important these number pages are for regular users who are not number savy, or are beginners in any field of mathematics. Anyways, having an extra line about two properties that are notable for 177, is definitely worthwhile. Blum integers and polygonal numbers are referenced in plenty of other number articles. What is really uncomfortable for me is that you do not want to even seek a middle ground, and refer to my edits as junk or cruft.. Radlrb (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I picked the last three prime factors of the Monster, which are not trivial. They make the minimal faithful representation of the Monster group. That's trivial to you? It's well cited and central to the order of the Monster. But sure, I'll take that it's OR. I don't have problems yielding, whereas you want to appropriate and single-handedly judge what is notable, without even coming here to the talk page before reverting edits multiple times (which is against guidelines). Radlrb (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair..... most people who are beginners, or not number savvy- are going to have no idea what the Monster or baby or kissing numbers are anyway. Point in case..... me! Nightenbelle (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And therefore we owe it to beginners and other non-savvy people not to mislead you by presenting meaningless junk as if it were significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling my edits junk - see my edit history on numbers and you will see they are very constructive. You are by extension calling me junk, or someone who produces junk - something that you have done against editors throughout the entire math Wikipedia - a hostile expression that pushes people away from editing, or even learning how to properly meaningfully edit. Those are insults, which is my original concern with you, you came at me on my own talk page with belittlement. Self-respecting academics don't go around insulting the efforts of others in improving Wikipedia articles. Nightenbelle, that point was specifically regarding the parity, primality and factorization of numbers, however there is a section for that on the infobox that I overlooked since I'm so used to editing the main body of math articles. Also, most number articles have information that one has to dwell deeper into to understand, depending on the level of understanding. Radlrb (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]