1780:
tagged in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would revert your removals of the tags, which I placed in good faith. Oh, and I had already put the unreferenced tags on 1 and 2; I held off putting notability tags there, even though the evidence is missing, because I did not want to give the impression that I thought those numbers were not notable within wikipedia guidelines; the evidence should still be found and added, of course. And please don't invoke the
507:. These numbers and the year are referenced in many reliable sources, but that does not mean the sources are "about" the number or year. No sources address the subject of the year 5 directly in detail. If the notion of notability requires that sources are written "about" it, then apparently that is not a notion that can be applied in a foolproof way, without using some common sense, to determine whether something is an encyclopedic topic. --
1543:) rather than using subjective evidence (e.g., does/does not seem famous/important to me). Notability requires the existence of objective evidence. It does not require the actual use of objective evidence in the article as far as AfD is concerned. By the number of keep reasons in this AfD, most people understand this so there is no reason to amend
673:. I've added a reference for the Ramanujan identities to hopefully satisfy User:Dicklyon. It features sqrt(5) pretty prominently. Most of the material of this article links to other pages, such as Fibonacci numbers or golden ratio. We don't have to give references for the notability of F.n. or g.r. here, but do so at the appropriate pages.
872:- While I personally can't understand what makes the square root of 5 a special number, there may be sources backing up the notability of the number. However, until a good deal of reliable sources are found to clear up any notability problems, the article should be deleted. It can always be recreated later. --
1603:
says: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. My beef is that none of the sources provide significant coverage of the square root of
1598:
I see; but I don't agree. In many cases, there are enough reliable sources of facts to write an article, but we don't because the subject is not notable. It's not a good idea to mix the notability requirements with the verifiability requirements. Both are independently important. In fact, much of
1856:
We'll have to ask Jakob.scholbach if he meant to be serious, or ludicrous, when he mentioned that those articles have nothing but trivia, and no reason to think the numbers in question are "notable" per wikipedia guidelines. I took him seriously; perhaps I was duped. I hadn't notice the root 3 is
1813:
I wouldn't object to including the "unreferenced" tag if it is meant to promote the addition of sources and additional material to improve those articles. But to start questioning the notability of such numbers as 36 and
Theodorus's constant is ludicrous. Among a plethora of other things, 36 is the
1779:
Not at all. Please don't assign motives to me; assume good faith. Those articles had zero citations, which means they lack both sources and evidence of notability. Jakob.scholbach was serious, I presume, in noting that they are considerably less notable than the square root of 5, which I also
618:
No, it's not "outside my field". I just think that numbers should meet criteria like other subjects; that means someone has to find and cite at least a couple of reliable secondary sources about the subject; nobody has done that, and I can't find such sources myself; so the AfD is an attempt to
328:
I still viscerally find this nomination absurd. Obviously there are references out there; based on your userpage, you probably have more subject-matter knowledge with which to track them down than I do. If I hadn't commented already I probably would speedy-close this as an obvious keep.
1962:
Yes, it has been improved a lot. It's still not clear that any of the refs for the various uses and trivia are actually suitable evidence of notability, and it doesn't meet the notability guidelines for numbers, but it's enough better that we can probably tolerate it now.
684:
I don't think we had any shortage of places where the square root of 5 appears in formulae, even prominently. But do those refs discuss the square root of 5? Or is it used just as any other number would be that happened to appear in a formula? You know, I have a book on
1567:
coverage has not been provided in the article to your satisfaction is not a basis for listing the article for deletion; it is a basis for improving the article. If you really like to know more about what the San Jose
Mercury News article said about the square root of 5 in
314:
I'm talking about ANY references to secondary sources about the square root of 5; there are NONE now (please mention a ref number, one of 1 through 6, if you see one that is not self-published and is about the square root of 5). And I must have missed that section of
1034:
The point was that it's actually not so hard to find articles specifically on the square root of 4, yet for some reason we're willing to call the square root of 5 notable even though we can't find any independent secondary sources about it. Sort of like the AfD on
1387:
From a mathematical point of view, you will find no book on a particular constant (books on pi, e, i, 0 et 1 are more of a phylosophical or nature). If you prefer metaphysical raisons for the notability of the square root of 5, you may refer to Robert Lawlor,
1396:, Quest Books, 1993, p. 42. You should not ask for a whole publication dedicated to a single number. By the way, I know no publication only concerned with the square root or with the subtraction, what does not mean that these operations are not notable ones.
527:? Frankly I wouldn't mind deleting every single such number article, and having done so I wouldn't mind if someone proposed to delete this as well, but while we still have all those, an extensive article like this seems well within precedent to keep.
619:
force the "inherently notable" opiners to put up or shut up. I would be perfectly happy to a keep outcome, if such sources can be found and cited. So far, none of what's cited is an independent reliable source about the subject of the article.
1604:
5; it's just a number that happens to come up in what they're covering. I'm not claiming that such sources CAN'T be found, but that we shouldn't have the article unless they are. That's the way I read notability. Have I got it wrong?
1679:
Sounds good to me; but since the result will be keep, we won't get to go there. But when you notice such articles, you ought to at least tag them with unreferenced and notability tags; I went ahead and did the ones you found.
648:. The notability guidelines say "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Clearly, the square root of 5 satisfies this criterion. --
726:, I think. They too appear in formulae, even prominently. But there's much less to say about just about any of them (any of them at all?) than there is about the square root of five, which is elegant and alluring to boot. --
776:
What's up with these opinions of strangeness and silliness? Whatever happened to discussing relationships to wikipedia policy? Oh, I see what you mean; the infinite number of monkeys does make that a very low probability.
993:
article was funny, so we'll ignore the fact that it was a disruption of
Knowledge (XXG) to make a point; what that point was--I'm not sure. If you have nothing better to do, go and expand one of the hundreds of articles in
1427:
I agree; you can't prove non-notability by what you don't know about. And I'm not insisting on whole books on the subject; that was just a counter to something someone said above. Articles on the subject would be fine.
899:
has to make generalizations about millions of articles. No one is going to write a book about the square root of 5, but the subject is so clearly notable, useful, and encyclopedic that I'm highly inclined to make use of
1718:
Good question. It usually doesn't seem to, but it's supposed to alert editors to find and add citations to independent reliable secondary sources, with the implication that the article may be deleted if they don't.
1323:
432:- The article has references. It is a good read for anyone interested in the golden ratio since its irrationality lies on the square root of five. I feel that deleting it per lack of notability would be stretching
1950:
I don't know whether the version I'm looking at is radically different to the one nominated (there seems to have been much activity recently), but it's currently supremely well sourced, thus asserting notability.
300:
Um, yes, I know what evidence of notability means as used on
Knowledge (XXG), and if your point is that perhaps the article could use some additional references, you are probably right. But we are talking about a
130:
A useful rebuttal of my claim that "No evidence of notability has been found" would be to point out one or more reliable secondary sources about the square root of 5. Then of course I would change my position to
846:, don't you think? Especially the statistics section; it took some work to find two refs stating that the square root of four was used that way, to effectively mock the guy who claimed the same thing for the
1818:
endorses having articles for all integers from -1 to 200, which includes 193. For its part, 720 is notable for several things mentioned in the article, including its being (like 36) one of the not-so-may
854:
one) where the square root of five is the unique nontrivial constant that makes this result work. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume that the 1956 ref actually does talk
273:
Your opinions are noted, but they don't get us closer to evidence of notability. Are you suggesting that an AfD based on lack of evidence of notability is inherently weak? Or something else?
1496:
material is available from which to develop the
Knowledge (XXG) article. Of course the Square root of 5 is going to be addressed in multiple math books. That alone is enough to meet
1206:
1160:
1116:
291:
Which cited references do you consider to be in that category? You do realize, I presume, that the term "evidence of notability" means citations to reliable secondary sources.
114:
746:
as well, as it is just plain silliness. It is a waste of server space to create a page for every irrational number, and two for every rational number (2, square root of 4).
346:
puts it, often overrides logic, as it should. But maybe not so within wikipedia rules. Anyway, find at least one source if you want to support the idea that it's notable.
1239:
206:. A well written sourced article. The notability comes from its link with the golden ration. Deleting this would be removing material that should be in an encyclopedia. --
919:
been written about this number, although since most were published in the 19th century or earlier, you won't find them on Amazon.com or at your local library.
495:. By the same argument that the article "must" be deleted barring citations of one or more reliable secondary sources about the square root of 5, the article
1658:
contain only trivial/non-notable facts and list contexts in which the number in question occurs. In view of this, if this discussion comes to the result of
858:
the square root of five, making it at least marginally notable (in the wikipedia sense), as opposed to just a number that shows up in a lot of formulae.
1814:
smallest square triangular number greater than 1, and if
Theodorus's constant is not notable, then I wonder how it even got a proper a name. Besides, the
842:
OK, I'll take it; nobody's ever given me an award on wikipedia before, and this sounds like a good one; I should also get a "great parody" award for the
1364:
1638:. It seems that most (actually any page on a number I randomly chose, except sqrt(2)) contain definitely less of encyclopedic material in the sense
989:
Thank you for the sarcasm. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve here, but the fate of this AfD is pretty much determined at this point. Your
192:
argument carries no weight. But if you can find those books and articles, and cite them, the reason for this AfD will go away and we'll be done.
1977:, there's plenty of good information here and the contexts the number appears in (eg golden rectangle) indicate plenty of "notability" to me.
1504:'s and that material is available for the article as well. I too consider this a very weak nomination, which would justify an early close. --
1392:, Thames & Hudson, 1982, p. 37, 61, who explains the importance of the square root of 5 in the Ancient Egypt. See also John Anthony West,
383:, well referenced and well written article. Just because some people do not find a subject interesting is not reason to delete the article.
1244:
937:, for example. Can we have a title or two? (Meanwhile, thanks again to Dicklyon for kicking off this stimulating and illuminating AfD.) --
87:
82:
995:
946:
Unless you're a subject matter expert already familiar with the paper, life is too short to scan through the thousands of publications by
1857:
also named
Theodorus's constant, which I would agree almost certainly means it is notable; can you find us a ref about that and cite it?
759:
Sqrt(4) is strange indeed. But, as you may not have noticed, there is not (yet...) an article about every irrational number, for example
91:
1377:
537:
933:
Now you've got me interested. Nineteenth-century books on the square root of 5, who'd a thunk it? Amazon schmamazon; we can look via
17:
1746:. One might as well start putting those tags on practically every Knowledge (XXG) article on numbers, starting with the articles on
603:-- inherently notable. Part of me wants to claim bad faith nomination as user clearly has a scientific background, but I'm going to
164:, or most numbers for which we have an article. There are books and theses dedicated to this number. As an alternative, I'd suggest
74:
850:
with two refs (since removed by me from that article, since it was absurd). At least I did flush out at least one actual ref (the
1815:
452:
Sources provided establish notability for the number as a mathematical concept above and beyond other numbers, satisfying the
723:
355:
If no one else does, then I suppose I will. But in the meantime I'm close to closing this debate as a WP:POINT violation.
305:, not an individual or an organization, and the notability of a number is an inherent fact rather than a human construct.
1781:
1564:
1548:
955:
1996:
1162:. This study, related to numerical approximation of radicals, has been continued by others. See for example Léauté, H.
36:
713:; if there's a book or article on the square root of five that I've missed, I'd like to get a copy for my collection.
1887:. I have no problem with the number, but I think it is short of the threshold for having an article (independent of
413:
1492:
in the context of AfD is not about actual citations in a
Knowledge (XXG) article. It is about the likelihood that
1500:
even if the article itself was unreferenced. There are practicable application for the Square root of 5 noted in
690:
1571:, I did provide a reference to the San Jose Mercury News article which you can find at most major libraries. --
1995:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1981:
1967:
1955:
1942:
1930:
1918:
1904:
1895:
1861:
1827:
1788:
1758:
1723:
1701:
1684:
1670:
1628:
1608:
1581:
1531:
1514:
1468:
1432:
1400:
1382:
1352:
1329:
1047:
1007:
984:
975:
941:
928:
910:
883:
862:
835:
811:
781:
771:
750:
730:
717:
677:
663:
652:
640:
623:
611:
595:
555:
542:
511:
487:
475:
460:
444:
424:
398:
387:
359:
350:
333:
323:
309:
295:
286:
277:
266:
254:
242:
228:
210:
196:
181:
147:
125:
56:
980:
OK, convinced me. If evidence of notability is hard to find, we simply forego it. I'll keep that in mind.
764:
1039:; if enough people think the subject is interesting or has appeared in important places, then we disregard
552:
453:
218:
189:
1373:
1167:
1121:
1077:
533:
747:
1892:
1465:
472:
78:
1461:
Sounds like a summary of that content, from those sources two would be a nice addition to the article.
1667:
768:
710:
674:
239:
824:
1927:
1824:
1755:
847:
53:
901:
1978:
1952:
1901:
851:
820:
437:
421:
1743:
1220:
892:
567:
per discussion above. Inherently notable, per malcomx15, and relevant to all sorts of things --
1599:
what's in the article is suitably sourced by now. But the sources are not about the subject.
1348:
Doesn't that just put the square root of 5 into yet one more infinite set? What's your point?
519:: Why are we voting to delete this when there are hundreds of less worthy number articles like
1368:
951:
694:
528:
508:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1600:
1552:
1544:
1536:
1524:
1497:
1489:
1040:
896:
588:
433:
316:
140:
49:
1820:
1698:
1651:
1462:
990:
878:
843:
760:
743:
469:
356:
330:
306:
283:
263:
70:
62:
1556:
604:
1915:
1663:
1002:
970:
923:
484:
176:
1540:
1501:
1493:
1900:
Hurwitz's theorem and
Ramanujan's identities seem independent of the golden ratio idea.
947:
568:
551:
Hopefully we're not voting, but rather discussing the issues related to this concept.
441:
343:
1560:
1964:
1858:
1785:
1720:
1681:
1662:, it would necessarily entail the deletion of lots of number-related articles in the
1639:
1605:
1574:
1528:
1507:
1429:
1349:
1044:
981:
906:
859:
828:
808:
778:
714:
660:
620:
572:
457:
395:
347:
320:
292:
274:
225:
193:
144:
122:
1939:
1888:
1647:
1643:
1625:
1397:
1326:
698:
649:
592:
580:
409:
384:
251:
169:
108:
1655:
1164:
Note sur le calcul approché par la méthode de
Poncelet des radicaux de la forme
873:
637:
608:
584:
576:
520:
161:
157:
1751:
1747:
1036:
999:
967:
938:
920:
832:
727:
504:
496:
207:
173:
659:
Clearly? Why not point out a few that we can cite then, so we can end this?
1539:
addresses a need to use objective evidence in determining notability (e.g.,
763:
is awaiting its birth. Otherwise we would need Hilbert's server and also an
417:
139:. But barring such citations, the article should be deleted, according to
1697:
Does putting notability tags on these articles serve any useful purpose?
796:
706:
1318:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {5}}={\sqrt {2^{2}+1^{2}}}={\sqrt {3^{2}-2^{2}}}}
223:"This concept is distinct from 'fame', 'importance', or 'popularity'."
1754:
which do not cite a single reference to "stablish their notability".
1989:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
702:
394:
It's interesting enough; it just lacks evidence of notability.
1823:(which are the "opposite" of primes and much rarer than them).
524:
262:
per OwenX and Bduke. I consider this a very weak nomination.
1359:
686:
1070:
It has to be noticed, for instance, that Poncelet, in the
319:
about numbers not needing evidence like everything else.
934:
709:, and classic copy of Los Alamos Science magazine on the
500:
238:
Not nessacary. Perhaps might be suitable for Wikibooks..
958:, looking for something that might very well be titled "
827:. But a special Fighting Spirit Award for the tenacious
1569:
408:
because notability comes from its connections with the
156:. Actually, this number is far more notable than, say,
104:
100:
96:
1642:
is perhaps looking for than this article. For example
282:
Evidence of notability is all over the article, IMHO.
1926:, notable number. All information is referenced. --
1624:. Well-referenced, important and notable number. ---
1247:
1223:
1170:
1124:
1080:
1074:
studied specifically certain forms of radicals, like
960:
On the Ratio of the Diagonal of the Double Rectangle
1357:Yeah, those are just the square roots of (sequence
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1317:
1233:
1200:
1154:
1110:
1742:No, putting those notability tags there was just
1527:to make this more clear "in the context of AfD".
1999:). No further edits should be made to this page.
221:, that is, notability as wikipedia defines it?
1537:WP:NOTE#Notability_requires_objective_evidence
1525:WP:NOTE#Notability_requires_objective_evidence
1211:Bulletin de la Société Mathématique de France
8:
607:and chalk it up to being outside his field.
1563:facts about the square root of 5. That the
416:and in various curious identities found by
1914:. Appears to be accurate and informative.
1744:disrupting Knowledge (XXG) to make a point
633:per OwenX and Bduke. As newyorkbrad said:
1307:
1294:
1288:
1277:
1264:
1258:
1248:
1246:
1224:
1222:
1190:
1177:
1171:
1169:
1144:
1131:
1125:
1123:
1100:
1087:
1081:
1079:
1072:Cours de Mécanique appliquée aux machines
121:No evidence of notability has been found
499:"must" be deleted. And also the article
996:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Mathematics
635:I consider this a very weak nomination.
436:. Furthermore, there is a planet math
1217:(1880), pp. 106-109. It appears that
1201:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {x^{2}-y^{2}}}}
1155:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {x^{2}-y^{2}}}}
1111:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {x^{2}+y^{2}}}}
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
964:Properties of the 1:2 Right Triangle
24:
1523:I see. Maybe we need to amend
1367:), which I assume is infinite.
724:Category:Japanese voice actors
1:
217:But where is the evidence of
795:, this is a notable number.
1982:15:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1968:06:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1956:05:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1943:05:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1931:23:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1919:19:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1905:01:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1896:18:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1862:22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1828:20:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1789:20:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1759:19:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1724:18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1702:18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1685:18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1671:18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1629:17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1609:02:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1582:02:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
1532:17:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1515:17:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1469:17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1433:17:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1401:17:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1383:17:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1353:16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1330:16:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1234:{\displaystyle {\sqrt {5}}}
1048:16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
1008:15:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
985:15:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
976:15:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
942:14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
929:13:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
911:11:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
884:08:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
863:07:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
836:07:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
812:07:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
782:06:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
772:06:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
751:06:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
731:14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
718:06:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
678:06:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
664:05:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
653:04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
641:04:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
624:05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
612:03:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
596:03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
556:05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
543:03:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
512:03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
488:03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
476:02:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
461:02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
445:02:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
425:02:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
399:01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
388:01:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
360:01:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
351:01:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
334:00:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
324:00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
310:00:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
296:00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
287:00:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
278:00:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
267:00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
255:00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
243:22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
229:23:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
211:22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
197:22:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
182:22:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
148:23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
126:22:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
57:16:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
2016:
454:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
414:Diophantine approximations
219:Knowledge (XXG):notability
250:. Same opinion as Bduke.
1992:Please do not modify it.
767:to write all the stuff.
32:Please do not modify it.
1559:of previously written,
468:Notable enough for me.
1319:
1235:
1202:
1156:
1112:
483:Inherently notable. --
412:and its occurrence in
1486:Keep and speedy close
1320:
1236:
1203:
1157:
1113:
1551:coverage to write a
1245:
1221:
1168:
1122:
1078:
711:Feigenbaum constants
697:, and a book on the
1816:WikiProject:Numbers
1782:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
848:square root of five
1784:argument with me.
1547:. There is enough
1394:Serpent in the Sky
1315:
1241:is of both forms:
1231:
1198:
1152:
1108:
722:Sounds a bit like
1821:highly composites
1381:
1313:
1283:
1253:
1229:
1196:
1150:
1106:
852:Hurwitz's theorem
695:square root of -1
693:, and a book the
541:
503:about the year 5
338:I hear you. The
2007:
1994:
1953:Mark H Wilkinson
1893:Charles Matthews
1652:Square root of 3
1580:
1577:
1541:reliable sources
1513:
1510:
1371:
1362:
1324:
1322:
1321:
1316:
1314:
1312:
1311:
1299:
1298:
1289:
1284:
1282:
1281:
1269:
1268:
1259:
1254:
1249:
1240:
1238:
1237:
1232:
1230:
1225:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1199:
1197:
1195:
1194:
1182:
1181:
1172:
1161:
1159:
1158:
1153:
1151:
1149:
1148:
1136:
1135:
1126:
1117:
1115:
1114:
1109:
1107:
1105:
1104:
1092:
1091:
1082:
991:Square root of 4
915:Actually, books
909:
895:. Unfortunately
844:square root of 4
805:
802:
799:
744:Square root of 4
705:, and a book on
701:, and a book on
689:, and a book on
553:FrozenPurpleCube
531:
112:
94:
71:Square root of 5
63:Square root of 5
34:
2015:
2014:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
1997:deletion review
1990:
1938:, good info. -
1668:Jakob.scholbach
1664:List of numbers
1575:
1572:
1565:reliable source
1549:reliable source
1508:
1505:
1390:Sacred Geometry
1358:
1303:
1290:
1273:
1260:
1243:
1242:
1219:
1218:
1186:
1173:
1166:
1165:
1140:
1127:
1120:
1119:
1096:
1083:
1076:
1075:
1005:
973:
926:
905:
882:
803:
800:
797:
769:Jakob.scholbach
765:infinite monkey
675:Jakob.scholbach
440:on this topic.
179:
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2013:
2011:
2002:
2001:
1985:
1984:
1971:
1970:
1959:
1958:
1945:
1933:
1921:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1674:
1673:
1632:
1631:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1518:
1517:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1385:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1287:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1263:
1257:
1252:
1228:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1176:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1134:
1130:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1003:
971:
924:
886:
876:
866:
865:
839:
838:
814:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
754:
753:
748:199.125.109.35
736:
735:
734:
733:
681:
680:
667:
666:
656:
655:
643:
627:
626:
615:
614:
598:
569:math education
561:
560:
559:
558:
546:
545:
514:
490:
478:
463:
447:
427:
402:
401:
391:
390:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
344:Steven Colbert
270:
269:
257:
245:
232:
231:
214:
213:
200:
199:
185:
184:
177:
119:
118:
65:
60:
54:Stephan Schulz
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2012:
2000:
1998:
1993:
1987:
1986:
1983:
1980:
1979:Bryan Derksen
1976:
1973:
1972:
1969:
1966:
1961:
1960:
1957:
1954:
1949:
1946:
1944:
1941:
1937:
1934:
1932:
1929:
1925:
1922:
1920:
1917:
1913:
1910:
1906:
1903:
1902:Michael Hardy
1899:
1898:
1897:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1879:
1878:
1863:
1860:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1829:
1826:
1822:
1817:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1790:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1760:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1725:
1722:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1686:
1683:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1672:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1640:User:Dicklyon
1637:
1634:
1633:
1630:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1610:
1607:
1602:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1555:and unbiased
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1483:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1434:
1431:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1384:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1331:
1328:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1295:
1291:
1285:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1261:
1255:
1250:
1226:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1174:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1128:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1049:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1009:
1006:
1001:
997:
992:
988:
987:
986:
983:
979:
978:
977:
974:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
940:
936:
932:
931:
930:
927:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
908:
903:
898:
894:
890:
887:
885:
880:
875:
871:
868:
867:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
837:
834:
830:
826:
822:
821:Michael Hardy
818:
815:
813:
810:
806:
794:
791:
790:
783:
780:
775:
774:
773:
770:
766:
762:
758:
757:
756:
755:
752:
749:
745:
742:. And delete
741:
738:
737:
732:
729:
725:
721:
720:
719:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
683:
682:
679:
676:
672:
669:
668:
665:
662:
658:
657:
654:
651:
647:
644:
642:
639:
636:
632:
629:
628:
625:
622:
617:
616:
613:
610:
606:
602:
599:
597:
594:
590:
587:. Now it is
586:
582:
578:
574:
573:number theory
570:
566:
563:
562:
557:
554:
550:
549:
548:
547:
544:
539:
535:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
489:
486:
482:
479:
477:
474:
471:
467:
464:
462:
459:
455:
451:
448:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
428:
426:
423:
422:Michael Hardy
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
403:
400:
397:
393:
392:
389:
386:
382:
379:
378:
361:
358:
354:
353:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
335:
332:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
299:
298:
297:
294:
290:
289:
288:
285:
281:
280:
279:
276:
272:
271:
268:
265:
261:
258:
256:
253:
249:
246:
244:
241:
237:
234:
233:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
215:
212:
209:
205:
202:
201:
198:
195:
191:
190:WP:OTHERSTUFF
187:
186:
183:
180:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
142:
138:
134:
128:
127:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1991:
1988:
1974:
1947:
1935:
1923:
1911:
1889:golden ratio
1884:
1880:
1659:
1648:193 (number)
1644:720 (number)
1635:
1621:
1573:
1506:
1485:
1393:
1389:
1369:CRGreathouse
1214:
1210:
1163:
1071:
963:
959:
916:
888:
869:
855:
823:and because
816:
792:
739:
699:golden ratio
670:
645:
634:
630:
600:
581:architecture
564:
529:CRGreathouse
516:
492:
480:
465:
449:
429:
420:and others.
410:golden ratio
405:
380:
339:
302:
259:
247:
235:
222:
203:
170:Golden ratio
165:
153:
136:
132:
129:
120:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1699:Newyorkbrad
1656:36 (number)
1557:compilation
1463:Paul August
966:" or such.
889:Strong keep
870:Weak delete
631:Strong keep
601:Strong keep
585:engineering
577:Golden mean
565:Strong keep
521:93 (number)
470:Paul August
430:Strong Keep
357:Newyorkbrad
331:Newyorkbrad
307:Newyorkbrad
284:Newyorkbrad
264:Newyorkbrad
260:Strong keep
162:93 (number)
158:71 (number)
135:instead of
46:Speedy Keep
1916:Eregli bob
1752:2 (number)
1748:1 (number)
1561:verifiable
1037:Maria Hart
497:5 (number)
485:Malcolmxl5
456:standard.
240:Rackabello
952:de Moivre
902:WP:IGNORE
825:I like it
591:, folks.
442:Brusegadi
418:Ramanujan
1965:Dicklyon
1928:musicpvm
1859:Dicklyon
1825:Uaxuctum
1786:Dicklyon
1756:Uaxuctum
1721:Dicklyon
1682:Dicklyon
1606:Dicklyon
1576:Jreferee
1529:Dicklyon
1509:Jreferee
1430:Dicklyon
1350:Dicklyon
1045:Dicklyon
982:Dicklyon
907:xDanielx
904:here. —
893:WP:SENSE
860:Dicklyon
829:Dicklyon
779:Dicklyon
715:Dicklyon
707:infinity
661:Dicklyon
621:Dicklyon
458:Alansohn
396:Dicklyon
348:Dicklyon
321:Dicklyon
293:Dicklyon
275:Dicklyon
226:Dicklyon
194:Dicklyon
166:redirect
145:Dicklyon
123:Dicklyon
115:View log
1940:grubber
1636:Comment
1626:RockMFR
1601:WP:NOTE
1553:neutral
1545:WP:NOTE
1498:WP:NOTE
1490:WP:NOTE
1363:in the
1360:A097268
1041:WP:NOTE
897:WP:NOTE
650:Dominus
593:Bearian
589:snowing
517:Comment
509:Lambiam
434:WP:NOTE
385:meshach
317:WP:NOTE
141:WP:NOTE
88:protect
83:history
50:WP:SNOW
1881:Delete
1660:delete
874:clpo13
819:, per
761:pi - e
740:Delete
638:Mathmo
609:JPG-GR
605:WP:AGF
575:, the
303:number
236:Delete
137:delete
92:delete
1885:merge
1883:, or
1650:, or
1568:music
1502:WP:RS
1494:WP:RS
1000:Owen×
968:Owen×
956:Binet
948:Euler
939:Hoary
935:Copac
921:Owen×
856:about
833:Hoary
831:. --
728:Hoary
208:Bduke
174:Owen×
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1975:Keep
1948:Keep
1936:Keep
1924:Keep
1912:Keep
1750:and
1622:Keep
1365:OEIS
1118:and
962:", "
954:and
917:have
891:per
879:talk
817:Keep
809:Talk
793:Keep
703:zero
671:Keep
646:Keep
583:and
523:and
493:Keep
481:Keep
466:Keep
450:Keep
438:page
406:Keep
381:Keep
248:Keep
204:Keep
188:The
154:Keep
133:keep
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
48:per
1891:).
1654:or
1398:pom
1327:pom
525:211
342:as
340:gut
252:pom
172:.
168:to
113:– (
1951:--
1666:.
1646:,
1488:-
1376:|
1325:.
1301:−
1213:,
1184:−
1138:−
1043:.
998:.
950:,
807:|
687:pi
579:,
571:,
536:|
505:CE
160:,
143:.
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:.
1466:☎
1380:)
1378:c
1374:t
1372:(
1309:2
1305:2
1296:2
1292:3
1286:=
1279:2
1275:1
1271:+
1266:2
1262:2
1256:=
1251:5
1227:5
1215:8
1208:.
1192:2
1188:y
1179:2
1175:x
1146:2
1142:y
1133:2
1129:x
1102:2
1098:y
1094:+
1089:2
1085:x
1004:☎
972:☎
925:☎
881:)
877:(
804:P
801:I
798:J
691:e
540:)
538:c
534:t
532:(
501:5
473:☎
178:☎
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.