Jump to content

Talk:34 (number)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

34 is NOT the sum of the first five factorials

[edit]

The sum of the first five factorials is (1! + 2! + 3! + 4! + 5!) = (1 + 2 + 6 + 24 + 120) = 153. Definitely not 34. I'm not a mathematician, which is why I'm not just deleting the statement - perhaps the original author meant to say something slightly different that just needs a minor correction. But the statement seems patently false as is. (Did the author simply add 1 to the sum of the first four factorials?)

Amber Kerr 20:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To get the sum of the first five factorials start counting at zero not 1...
(0! + 1! + 2! + 3! + 4!) = (1 + 1 + 2 + 6 + 24) = 34.
70.227.96.89 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

josh spinger

Edit.

[edit]

I fixed the opening few paragraphs as well as merged the science section with its sub-section to form one new, better looking article. Mundokiir (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


vandalism in the last line of the paragraph:

The Saros number of the solar eclipse series which began on -1917 August 4 and ended on -384 February 9. The duration of Saros series 34 was 1532.5 years, and it contained 86 solar eclipses. 34 is answer to every question

Rule 34

[edit]

Rule 34 deserves a mention here, at least as much as the other things in the "Other Fields" section. Just because Wikipedia decided against an article on Rule 34 (happily replacing it with an article on a more obscure rule 34, no less), that doesn't mean there needs to be a vendetta against any mention of it anywhere. --MQDuck (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However including the link to a porn site as a reference seems a little much WP:ELNO Cgeorge1122 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three "Rule 34"'s in that section, all leading here. Not exactly clear, needs its own section at the very least if not a dab page. ☭ мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 15:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stross has submitted the final draft of his next novel titled "Rule 34" -- so it looks like somehow this will have to be resolved.... SunSw0rd (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I call Rule 34 on Wikipedia. 99.135.250.116 (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting a deletion of the link to XKCD, which claimed it was "not a reliable source". Please, let's discuss the issue here? Yes, the comic is not "published". On the other hand, it's archived and widely read. (See the Wikipedia article on it.) I maintain that a link to the particular comic is more appropriate than a reference to the book "xkcd: volume 0", which was published. Besides, the point of the reference is that the internet meme of Rule 34 is widespread. It makes sense that the source for THIS would be online.DavidHobby (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XKCD is only a source for itself. I see no reason why it should be credited as a reference. An external link to that "issue" of the webcomic is within reason, but it should not be a "reference". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting information about Albrecht Dürer's Magic Square

[edit]

Albrecht Dürer's Magic Square originally is not the original one.

Albrecht Dürer  ≠  The Original
16 3 2 13 1 14 11 8
5 10 11 8 12 7 2 13
9 6 7 12 6 9 16 3
4 15 14 1 15 4 5 10

Proof shown below:

Albrecht Dürer's Magic Square  ≠  The Original Magic Square
Rows 16 3 2 13  =  34 Rows 1 14 11 8  =  34
5 10 11 8 34 12 7 2 13 34
9 6 7 12 34 6 9 16 3 34
4 15 14 1 34 15 4 5 10 34
Columns 16 5 9 4  =  34 Columns 1 12 6 15  =  34
3 10 6 15 34 14 7 9 4 34
2 11 7 14 34 11 2 16 5 34
13 8 12 1 34 8 13 3 10 34
Diagonals 16 10 7 1  =  34 Diagonals 1 7 16 10  =  34
13 11 6 4 34 8 2 9 15 34
Top 2x2 Squares 16 3 5 10  =  34 Top 2x2 Squares 1 14 12 7  =  34
3 2 10 11 26 14 11 7 2 34
2 13 11 8 34 11 8 2 13 34
Middle 2x2 Squares 5 10 9 6  =  30 Middle 2x2 Squares 12 7 6 9  =  34
10 11 6 7 34 7 2 9 16 34
11 8 7 12 38 2 13 16 3 34
Bottom 2x2 Squares 9 6 4 15  =  34 Bottom 2x2 Squares 6 9 15 4  =  34
6 7 15 14 42 9 16 4 5 34
7 12 14 1 34 16 3 5 10 34
Ver. 2x2 Parted Squares 16 3 4 15  =  38 Ver. 2x2 Parted Squares 1 14 15 4  =  34
3 2 15 14 34 14 11 4 5 34
2 13 14 1 30 11 8 5 10 34
Hor. 2x2 Parted Squares 16 5 13 8  =  42 Hor. 2x2 Parted Squares 1 12 8 13  =  34
5 9 8 12 34 12 6 13 3 34
9 4 12 1 26 6 15 3 10 34

Ahmed Tharwat 3 July 2010

what does this have to do with the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1- For me it's the 1st time editing in wikipedia, and as a non-confirmed user yet, I can't replace the Magic Square image with the corrected one,
I just create a table proofing what I meant about it.
2- Kindly, this correction is for the Magic Square only not for the whole article.
3- Albrecht Dürer's Magic Square simply isn't the perfect (34) Magic Square (Proved Above).
I hope this correction didn't encroach any limits - Ahmed Tharwat 21:10, 5 July 2010 (GMT+2)
It's not entirely relevant to this article.
  1. Any normal magic square of order 4 has constant 34.
  2. Whether the "perfect" magic square is more magic than Dürer's, the appropriate one for this article is probably the first recorded, or best known, rather than the "best". As this appears in 1514, it's likely that Dürer intended it as such, although I don't have a definite source for that.
  3. Further discussion should probably be at Talk:magic square.
— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, I don't consider the 2 × 2 subsquares all summing to 34 as being an "important" property of the square. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mr. Arthur for your cooperative info, Unfortunately I didn't got what you meant about No.1 & the last line "Also..."
Could you please explain your point of view in details. - Ahmed Tharwat 23:44, 7 July 2010 (GMT+2)
Well, as noted (after some arithmetic) in magic square, any normal magic square of order 4 has constant 34. Hence, the illustration should be the best-known square, rather than the "best" (or "most magic") square. I think Dürer's qualifies on that point. There may be some justification for replacing it with the first-normal square of order 4 from magic square#India,
7 12 1 14
2 13 8 11
16 3 10 5
9 6 15 4
It's clear, however, that Dürer's square is the one in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.ngcic.org/
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 26 (number) on 2011-06-19 05:45:43, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case! Not interesting!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 34 (number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

34 as a magic number

[edit]

Hi,

This page for number 34 mentions that it is one of the magic number in physics but the page linked from there does not mention 34 a single time. Is there a mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.96.140 (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is that the link says what a "magic number in physics" is, while the references say that 34 MAY be a new one. So claiming that 34 is a magic number is a bit of a stretch. Delete that part if you want to? DavidHobby (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo names -

[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gilda numbers, etc

[edit]

An IP address added some stuff on "Gilda numbers", and variants. I'm happy to talk about this, but these seem to just be made up. First, there should be an article on Gilda numbers.DavidHobby (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing this. It's Appearing Repeatedly in Quite a Distinctive Style. It seems to be unsourced numerological nonsense that can safely be removed. See also angel numbers. Certes (talk) 08:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:34_(number)&oldid=1197020517"