Talk:23 (number)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers 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.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

is 23 a mirror prime

Michael Jordan picture

I would prefer a picture of Michael Jordan in which you can clearly see his jersey number. The picture I'm showing at left is more obviously relevant to this article about the number 23, but there aren't any people in it. Knodeltheory 23:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.53.84 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

23 is not the smallest prime that is not part of a twinprime. 2 is the smallest prime that is not part of a twinprime. 2 is the smallest even prime that is not part of a twinprime (this one is definitely and highly true). So, 23 is the smallest odd prime that is not part of a twinprime.

Umm...if you read the twin prime page, you'll see that 2 and 3 are the first and only prime twins that are only one apart. Maybe you are under a false impression of the definition of a twin prime. FruitMart07 19:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... if you read the twin prime page, you'll see that 2 and 3 are not defined as prime twins. --Rpresser 22:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Integers and cubing

Is not 23 = 2³ + 2³ + 2³ + (-1)³ + 4 * 0³, and thus the sum of 8 cubes? That said, perhaps the authors meant Natural Numbers or the set of all non-negative integers. — Xoder |✆ 05:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

"In 1939, Dickson proved that the only integers requiring nine positive cubes are 23 and 239. Wieferich proved that only 15 integers require eight cubes: 15, 22, 50, 114, 167, 175, 186, 212, 231, 238, 303, 364, 420, 428, and 454 (Sloane's A018889). " [1] — Clarknova 05:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two closely related binary Golay codes, one of length 23 and one of length 24, the latter obtained by adding a parity bit to the former; see Golay Code at Mathworld. Our article on the Golay Code should be rewritten to better reflect this. (For some reason I'm being automatically logged out before every edit right now -- this is User:4pq1injbok.) 68.146.166.106 18:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First line

hi Maybe it's just that it's late or I'm an idiot, but I just can't make head nor tail of this sentence:

In English, its spelled out name is the smallest with eleven letters.

What does this mean? There are plenty of numbers that have fewer than eleven letters. The only other interpretation I can gather is that it means that the smallest possible spelling of the number incorporates 11 letters, which seems similarly nonsensical.

Please, help a doddering fool out... Kane5187 05:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-three is the smallest natural number whose name spelled out in English requires at least 11 letters. --Rpresser 22:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems really random. 98.202.172.148 (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

9/11

The line:

The individual numbers in the date 9/11/2001 add up to 23 no its' true but it needs to be done this way

the number 23

Is incorrect. 9+11+2+1 does equal 23, but the statement makes no sense when stating 'the individual numbers'. 9+1+1+2+1 is only 14. Darkness Productions 16:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And so, I have deleted it. No need to discuss stuff like this; if it's obviously wrong, just delete it. -- Slowmover 17:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetris

"Tetris pieces have a total of 23 distinct orientations."

Is that right? The square has one, the single bar and s/z shaped ones have 2 each, and the L/J/T shaped ones have four, which adds up to 19 for me.

Actually there are 2 different "L" shapes, so that would make 4 more orientations possible, equaling 23. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.97.71.188 (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop

Under Religion, the article says that archbishop of Paris is named André Vingt-Trois. If I'm not mistaken, his last name translates to twenty three. That should be clarified in the article. FruitMart07 19:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of archbishops, I added that John XXIII was the highest numbered Pope so far, which is true at any rate. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pres. JFK?

Why is this in here? if you added 11 for november it throws it off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toastthemost (talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In other fields

Can these be be separated into the catagories above. I think a lot of these also deal with science and history, and a new entertainment catagory would be good. D4S 15:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomy?

I would do this myself but I'm new to this editing thing, and I don’t want to step on any toes, but I don't think that the fact that 23 was Hitler's favorite number, though interesting as it is, belongs in the astronomy section. Just thought that I should point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.128.19 (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have to agree. That comment is both unsourced and has absolutely nothing to do with astronomy. 149.43.252.6 09:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie spammers - No references

This page is getting abused with nothing but crap since some movie about 23 was announced. There are several hundred edits of this page just in the past 60 days. Most other number pages take years to get that level of edits.

There is one single reference right now for the hundred or so unverified trivia items presented on this page.

Can someone add the unverified references template to this page so people know not to trust the information presented? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.129.44.244 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree. This is one page you should not trust without verifying all the data for yourself. People should know that. AmberAlert1713 21:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23/7 estimation of pi?

Not sure who failed mathematics here, but 22/7 is the estimation which gets closest to pi when dealing with smaller numbers. 22/7 = 3.142857 while pi is around 3.141593, a difference of just about 1/800th, close enough if you're just calculating the diameter of your new fish pond. 23/7 is way off.

ByteofKnowledge 15:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unverified Research" tag

I'm taking down the unverified research tag. It makes the page look ugly, and generally insults the average reader. Furthermore, anyone interested in editing pages should be able to figure out from the significant number of [citation needed] tags that the page has a problem. People attempting to use this page in a scholarly report or to make an argument really should look at every page on wikipedia as though it might have unverified research; if a fact anywhere isn't properly cited, it doesn't belong in scholarly work. I'm willing to hear arguments for the tag here or on my talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AmberAlert1713 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Other musical uses of 23

Doesn't the song "New Millennium Cyanide Christ" from Meshuggah's album Chaosphere use a time signature of 23/16? (Well, 5 bars of 23/16, 1 final bar of 13/16; adding upto 128/16)Neo 2.3 Hylan 14:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be meshuggah (Yiddish for crazy) to compose in such an odd signature. :grin: --Rpresser 22:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divisibility rule

Does 23 have a divisibility rule?

Pointlessness 18:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but it is so complicated you would be better off dividing by 23. 4 = 2 + 2 02:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

Can't seem to find a place for this to fit, but Dr. Pepper would fit in here with the purported use of 23 flavours (not just the recent campaign, but historically).

User:Maikeru 4:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Aleister Crowley & Genesis P-Orridge reference verification

I just read in Douglas Rushkoff's book "Media Virus" that the number is associated with change and apocalypse in pagan beliefs and that there is a correlation between those beliefs and the individuals of of Aleister Crowley and Genesis P-Orridge. This is news to me... Can anyone else confirm this or cite a reference?

User:Universal Logic 4:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you already have a reference that you can cite...why don't you just use that? --Jakob Russian (talk) 03:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Craigslist has 23 employees

http://www.craigslist.org/about/pages.and.peeps.html

Not anymore:

Q: How many employees does craigslist have, and where are its offices located?

A: 25 of us work out of a victorian house in the Inner Sunset neighborhood of San Francisco

Found here: http://www.craigslist.org/about/factsheet

Ij00mini (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The Proposal was already removed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The proposal to merge 23 (numerology) with this article was made more than a month ago, and yet there has been no discussion. I, for one, oppose the merger. However, if there is not going to be any discussion of the matter, I suggest the merge tags be removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing this merge proposal, which is clearly moribund. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Film, television, and notability

I removed Final Destination 2 and One Tree Hill from these lists since the uses of these numbers was not notable. For Final Destination 2, I'm sure you could find a zillions of references to highway 23 in movies or a place being 23 miles/km away. For One Tree Hill, it simply stated "Is used in a number of ways" without explaining - without demonstrating that 23 is truly significant in the show, this could be as frivolous as the highway 23 thing.

71.212.27.35 (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section is a list of appearence of the number 23 in movies etc. There are a lot of movies that contain this number. Maybe it is used more often than other numbers, so I do not agree with the removal of the above movies. Those were correct, so I suggest to put those back. That is why I did it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DagTT (talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain Shot down

Hogforyababy can you please explain how the mission that John McCain was shot down is notable or famous? A new name 2008 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why exclude Pope John XXIII

He did promulgate Vatican II, which makes him even more important than most other Popes. His numeral is the very number that this Article is about, and he is the highest numbered Pope thus far. Those things are pretty important and involve a XXIII, IE 23rd, so why not include them in the Religion Section? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess being the highest numbered Pope thus far might be notable, but I don't think so. If it were notable, we'd need to add each of the previous (first) highest numbered Popes to those respective articles. I don't think you want to go there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the highest numbered Pope before him? That was John XXII (ruled 7 August 1316-4 December 1334), but that would kind of go without saying considering he had the same name, and was therefore immediately before in counting Johns. The highest numbered Pope not named John was Gregory XVI (ruled 2 February 1831-1 June 1846). Besides, those other Popes didn't promulgate Vatican II, the council that made the Roman Catholic Church truly modern. The fact that the only 23rd (XXIII) Pope so far promulgated that historic council is what I meant as being notable for an Article on the Number 23, particularly in the Religion Section. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean each successive (then) highest numbered pope should be listed in the corresponding numerical article, probably starting with III. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would make some sense, but the fact remains that those other Popes didn't promulgate Vatican II. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill and Ted would be proud.

"When you multiply 23 by 3, you get 69 (sex position), which is a popular position during sex." Har de har har, hilarious. I don't think this has the slightest significance, so it's going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.91.233 (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 X 3

1 The Earth's axis is tilted to the Sun at 23.5 degrees.

2 The Earth's rotation is not really 24 hours. It is really 23 Hours and 56 Minutes.

3 There are 23 Chromosomes in 23 base pairs in Human DNA

God's Holy Number?

74.90.164.224 (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alban Berg

The material about Alban Berg and 23 shouldn't be here for the following reasons:

The sources presented, even if reliable (bare Google books URLs are questionable at best; the publisher frequently cannot be determined), are not about either Alban Berg or "23". The first is a bare footnote.
There is no mention of 23 in our article on Alban Berg. If it were a notable fact about 23, it would be even more notable about Alban Berg. It's not there.
It's entirely too much detail. The statement should be at most "The composer Alban Berg had a particular interest in the number 23, using it to structure several works." Speculations as to reasons are just that — speculations. See WP:GOSSIP.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for other musicians use of 23 are given, so why not here. Originally you wnted to remove the whole reference. I don't understand why. If speculations are made in reliable sources what's the problem? If this were a good article as opposed to a rather adhoc list of things maybe I'd think it worth striving for consistency. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Berg's use of the number 23 looks to be at least as significant as most of the rest of the page; if it should go, then so should most of the rest. The reference for the asthma attack looks good enough (if you follow the link to Google books, and then click on "About this book" it gives full publishing details, so I've edited the reference to give them). On the other hand the other reference, for the biorhythms thing, is clearly not good enough, since it doesn't actually mention the number 23 or biorhythms. If the reference it cites can be tracked down, and it actually does mention these, then perhaps that can be used; but perhaps not, because it is by the same author as the later reference used for the asthma attack, so it is possible that the author changed his mind about the reason the number was significant between the publication of the earlier article and the publication of the book. Brunton (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a better source for the biorhythms, which is also Jarman. The article has been cited five times since. Sorry, I don't know why I didn't give this source in the first place. Generally I think this page and others are a useful source for anyone investigating the history of number symbolism. Nobody is obliged to read it! Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little better because it certainly refers to the number 23, but do you have access to the full text? The free preview doesn't get as far as mentioning Biorhythms or Fliess (I'm not sufficiently interested in this to pay for a download, but if we're going to use it somebody needs to have seen the part of it that specifically references biorhythms/Fliess as being connected with berg's use of 23 - the title alone will not do as it doesn't specifically state a connection between Fliess, biorhythms, and the number 23). Additionally, I'm slightly dubious about including two different opinions from the same author. Where the same author apparently changes his opinion, we should probably just go for the later opinion. Brunton (talk) 12:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see some articles for free. I haven't used up my ration on this, it has to be in there, given title and reference to 23. Author hasn't necessarily changed his opinion, and the two are not mutually contradictory. We could change the text to say that Jarman has offered different reasons. I think the biorhythms one is better known and the article is cited. Sceptic1954 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points 2 and 3 are not fully resolved. Per point 2, I copied this information over to Alan Berg, but the reference style there is completely different. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in editing Alban Berg. There are no number points so I don't know what you refer to precisely. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-editing to change bullet points to number points. Sorry about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re 2 whether this belongs on Alban Berg is hardly relevant here. Re 3 what is wrong with reporting speculations if they are RS, a great deal of history and biography is speculation. Sceptic1954 (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 23 (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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222234706/http://www.dauddegtre.co.uk/ to http://www.dauddegtre.co.uk/

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) 13:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo names -

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]

Considering removal

In the mathematics section the following sentence occurs in connection with the discussion of the birthday paradox:

A related coincidence is that 365 times the natural logarithm of 2, approximately 252.999, is very close to the number of pairs of 23 items, 253.

I understand the relevance of 253, but I'm not grasping why we would multiply 365 by the natural log of 2. I'm also questioning why it would be a coincidence, although perhaps the answer to the first question might explain the usage of the term.

If there is an explanation which is blindingly obvious I will leave it (I think it qualifies as not requiring a reference).
If there is an explanation which is interesting but not blindingly obvious I will suggest that it ought to be included.
If there is an explanation which is tortured, I think the sentence ought to be removed--S Philbrick (Talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: Birthday problem#Approximation of number of people sheds light on the similarity of the two numbers, in an interesting but not blindingly obvious way. Certes (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certes, Thanks. Definitely not blindingly obvious. Maybe interesting, but borderline. I'll leave it. S Philbrick (Talk) 22:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]