Their might be a pop culture association between the number 37 and sex. On Seinfeld, Jerry and Elaine had sex 37 times (by Elaine's count) prior to the first episode. In the movie Clerks, Dante's girlfriend fellated 37 men before the beginning of the movie. -- Anonymous User
- In a row? MessedRocker 05:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Docu's sample page
- It was mainly a sample and a proposal for a summary table (I changed the header above). -- User:Docu
<from user talk:Docu> I'm puzzled as to why you think links to googlism should be in the Thirty-seven article. As far as I can tell from looking at this google search there are no other articles listing googlism as an external link. Would you want links to googlism in every article? Why, for example, is linking to googlism from Thirty-seven more useful than linking to it from Socialism? I'm willing to be told I'm wrong about this (it would hardly be the first time!) but at present I can't really understand your reasoning. Cheers -- Ams80 22:02, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- "Would you want links to googlism in every article?" - No.
- Why remove it? I suppose you agree that it's noteworthy and the link is about 37. -- User:Docu
- I don't really understand the second line of your answer I'm afraid. If by "it's noteworthy" you mean that the number 37 is noteworthy then I don't really agree, it's only as noteworthy (to me) as every other integer, which for me is not very. If you mean that the content of the googlism page is noteworthy then again I would disagree, it's primarily jumbled nonsense, I doubt even 10% of the sentences are relevant. And there's not even any links to the web pages googlism has taken them from to go and have a look at whether a particular line is nonsense or not. I can't disagree that the links are about the number 37 but on the other hand there are thousands of pages with information about the number 37. It's always been my way of thinking that external links should point readers to more comprehensive treatments of the subject, possibly to pages of differing POVs of the subject or to other reliable sites where a user can attempt to verify the information they've found at Wikipedia. I don't think that the googlism links fall into any of these categories. As you can probably guess, I'm quite keen to re-remove the links, but I won't touch them before I understand why you want to keep them (if at all). -- Ams80 23:24, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
</from user talk:Docu>
The "magic" trick
- The number used in a certain magic trick. In this trick the magician asks a person to think of a number that meets the following criteria: a)must be between 1 and 50, b)must have two digits, c)both digits must be odd, d)both digits cannot be the same. Only eight numbers meet these criteria: 13, 15, 17, 19, 31, 35, 37, and 39. Statistically, people will pick 37 over any of the other numbers. Therefore, the magician can use this probability to create the effect of mind-reading. Of course, it doesn't always work, but when it does, it provides for a very startling effect.
- I for one am not at all impressed by this magic trick. But perhaps it would be nice to see some support for the statement that statisticly people will pick 37 more often. 188.8.131.52 17:32, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I have seen this trick used on people (see, e.g., David Blaine's Street Magic for a notable professional magician's use). I actually used it myself on a bunch of people (in a discussion about guessing my age) and the majority picked 37. I think the reason this works is that when people are asked to pick something "randomly", they take pains to avoid picking "special" things (no one, not even 1 in 52, will take the top card when asked to draw a card for a trick). In the decimal number system, people tend to avoid "special" numbers like 0, 1, 9, and 5. Now look at the list of available numbers and count how many contain none of these "special" ones. That is why the trick works. Not perfectly, but surprisingly often. Baccyak4H 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I just happened by, and was surprised to see "Numerology" as a subheading under "Science". Shouldn't it go under "Other fields"?
I think listing numerology as a science is not NPOV. I'd change it right now myself, except that I don't want to start any fights. So I'm putting a marker in here for a couple of days. DavidCBryant 14:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Supersingular prime ambiguity
"37 is the smallest prime that is not also a supersingular prime."