Jump to content

Talk:1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1 has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 29, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 17, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the number 1 is its own square, square root, and factorial?

Primality

[edit]

Not sure that any extended discussion of the definition of primality really belongs here at all. But it seems dubious at present (and even more in earlier versions). It feels we are being told that the truth is that primes are non-units, whereas of course it is only a matter of definition.

This is because 1 is the only positive integer divisible by exactly one positive integer, whereas prime numbers are divisible by exactly two positive integers and composite numbers by more than two positive integers.

Well, no, it is not because..., this is just a rewording to justify the convention. Is this really needed?

...exclude due to its impact upon the fundamental theorem of arithmetic and other theorems related to prime numbers.

Well, again it doesn't really affect the prime factorisation theorem, only its wording. You have to say "...unique factorisation up to order", but you could also say "up to order, sign, and units", meaning that as factorisations of 18, (3, 2, 3) and (1, -2, -3, -1, 3) are the same.

Anyway, I think this section should be minimalised, and mostly just point to the prime number article. Imaginatorium (talk) 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's just a matter of definition. It's convenient to not be prime, to avoid definitions getting cumbersome. It can be pruned. Polyamorph (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Polyamorph (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 16:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that 1 is its own square, square root, and factorial?
  • Source: *Colman, Samuel (1912). Coan, C. Arthur (ed.). Nature's Harmonic Unity: A Treatise on Its Relation to Proportional Form. New York and London: G.P. Putnam's Sons. pp. 9–10.
  • Reviewed:
Improved to Good Article status by Polyamorph (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Polyamorph (talk) 12:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Congratulations on the Good Article status! This article is newly promoted to Good Article, and is sufficiently long and well cited. The Copyvio pulls up a flag to an obscure pdf, which must be an example of the reverse (pdf using text from wikipedia). The hook is excellent, terse and to the point but a tease that draw the readers in; if only to marvel at how you can write an encyclopedia entry on '1'. Hook source checks out. QPQ not required for the nominator. Approved! Chaiten1 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph and Chaiten1: What is your opinion of the hook ALT1: ... that many older typewriters do not have a dedicated key for the numeral 1?--Launchballer 14:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer my proposed hook as its a fundamental property of the number itself. Polyamorph (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries then.--Launchballer 15:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Polyamorph and Launchballer, sorry for disrupting. But apparently, is it possible we add some wiklinks about those three? To me, readers may not understand about mathematical terms. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Factorial maybe, although square and square root are surely common terms.--Launchballer 23:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider wikilinks, the issue is that the wikilink 1 is small, even when bolded. I wanted to make sure that users focus was on the link to 1 and not some other non-GA article. But I would support a wikilink to factorial (which is a GA), and indeed square (algebra) and square root if these would be helpful. Polyamorph (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, Dedhert.Jr, and Chaiten1: Seems like this was approved, promoted by AirshipJungleman29, and ready to go in prep area 6 until apparently rejected by Crisco 1492. What happens now? Polyamorph (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for it to be restored here: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Template:Did_you_know_nominations/1 Polyamorph (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't actually rejected, just pushed back forward! Phew Polyamorph (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2025

[edit]

Do roman numbers I=1 Busserler (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Your request is not clear, but the the Roman numeral is already in the infobox Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1&oldid=1281980286"