# Talk:Keith number

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-class, Low-priority)
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:
 Start Class
 Low Priority
Field: Number theory

This article doesn't make sense. How can you split 197 into two digits? — Timwi 02:15, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You split 197 into three digits and make the Fibonacci-like sequence from that, then 197 recurs. I wouldn't say that the "article doesn't make sense." Instead, I would say that User:Ams80 has expressed it more like a professional mathematician would. I don't always understand the way professional mathematicians talk, but that's a criticism of me, and not of them. PrimeFan 20:41, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I understand the article now. The reason why it didn't make sense to me is because a "Fibonacci sequence", to me, has the recurrence formula ${\displaystyle F_{n}=F_{n-2}+F_{n-1}}$. This means there are only two degrees of freedom, and so you can only specify two initial values for the sequence. This is why a three-digit number confused me. — Now that I understand what Keith numbers are, it seems kind of weird because the three-digit Keith numbers feel kind of fundamentally different in their nature from the two-digit ones. But anyway. — Timwi 22:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How the fibonacci-like sequence is formed for 3- and 4-digit numbers might need to be explianed a little better. Also, I'm all for piling on greek letters, but I liked how the older versions of the article made more sense to common folk. Perhaps the two approaches could be blended? Numerao 19:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

## Mike Keith

Who is/was Keith?

He's a mathematician who published a paper on these numbers titled "Repfigit Numbers" in a 1987 issue of the Journal of Recreational Math. However, this does not make him more important than NFL announcer Mike Keith in our culture's estimation. PrimeFan 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Now linked to Mike Keith_(mathematician), courtesy User:Kompik. Incidentally, Keith is also the brilliant author of Cadaeic_Cadenza, which is definitely worth a look. Rpresser 16:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

## Keith Number

On "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" the "Keith Number" refers to the number of independent voters plus the margin of error. Is this the same mathmatical concept? Does it deserve a seperate page or disambiguation page? 76.112.217.162 (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section to this article for now, although if the section is expanded much, or Olbermann's "Keith number" grows in popularity and usage, it perhaps should be a separate article.Cbvt (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you might be jumping the gun here. If you can find an article in either a political science journal or a mathematical journey regarding the Keith Olbermann numbers, then by all means, it ought to at least be mentioned here. But if you can't, we really wouldn't be able to defend this against deletionists. PrimeFan (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure where to put the information, but I agree that it doesn't really belong here, so I've moved it to the Countdown with Keith Olbermann article, and added a disambig link to this article. Since it's an unrelated concept, I think that probably makes more sense.Cbvt (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This way, people looking for either one will be properly directed, without aggravating pigeonhole fanatics. PrimeFan (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

## Complete list=

I would like to include a complete list of the 100 or so known Keith numbers. MathWorld seems to have the most complete list, but copying that is probably a copyright violation. Can we find another source? — Herbee (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

## Other bases

What about Keith numbers in other bases? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)