Talk:64 (number)

Is something wrong with the math markup on this page? Andy Mabbett 01:29, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, its just cause when it detects no special math character is needed it doesn't make a ping, so you see text rather than a ping of text. -- Anonymous User

64 incident?

A Google search for "64 incident" yields mostly unrelated results. The results that do mention Tianamen are for this Wikipedia article. I also tried "64 tianamen" and that gave similar results. Anton Mravcek 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a growing problem in Wikipedia. I've found other "facts" that were spread throughout the web, but the original source was always Wikipedia! --Grouse 22:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3560:4440:442D:1A6A:E5FE:36D3 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this right?

From the Article: It is also the number of days a reoccurance took place over the summer of 2005 to a then 13 yr old girl.

That was in the astronomy section. It doesn't sound relevant to astronomy so I removed it. PrimeFan 20:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting observation about 64

Noting that 2^6 = 4^3 = 8^2, is it just a little interesting that 2*4*8 = 64 ? Is there any other number with this property? -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state this property algebraically? (Something like n = x^2 + y^3 ... etc.) PrimeFan 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well so far 64 is the only number I know to have this property... where the number is a product of all of its roots. If we could find more numbers perhaps we could find a pattern for it (like we have something of a pattern for perfect numbers) -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 07:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every number is a product of all its prime roots. This is an inherent property of all numbers. So 8 = 4*2, 16=8*2 or 4*4 or 16*1, ect. Only prime numbers are products of all their roots, with a few exceptions (8 = 4*2*1, 6=3*2*1, 14 = 7*2*1, 21 = 7*3*1, ect.). Titanium Dragon 07:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are factors, not roots. -- Toksyuryel ^{talk | contrib} avatar 20:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any 6th power of a number which is not a perfect power.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, a number is the product of all of its nontrivial roots if it can be written as a^b, where a is a non-power and b is a perfect number. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resource

[1] --Gravity^Talk 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[dead link]} — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

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 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:01:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
- In 52 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:05:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2

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://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros1-175.html
- In 138 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:57:59, 404 Not Found
- In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:24, 404 Not Found
- In 159 (number) on 2011-06-01 18:16:47, 404 Not Found
- In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:03:15, 404 Not Found
- In 53 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:09:35, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3

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://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEsaros/LEsaros1-175.html
- In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:07:31, 404 Not Found
- In 1520s BC on 2011-05-23 03:34:42, 404 Not Found
- In 1630s BC on 2011-05-25 01:51:51, 404 Not Found
- In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:15, 404 Not Found
- In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:24, 404 Not Found
- In 1409–1400 BC on 2011-06-01 15:26:12, 404 Not Found
- In 159 (number) on 2011-06-01 18:16:53, 404 Not Found
- In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:03:06, 404 Not Found
- In 53 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:09:29, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 64 (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) 08:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

$64,000 question

Shouldn't The 64,000 Dollar Question be listed under 64,000 rather than 64? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

samimuser11219955 Samimuser11219955 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2020 (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) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft

What is a "stack", and why should we care it is limited to 64? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of shares in a ship or boat under British Registry...

"Number of shares in a ship or boat under British Registry owing to its divisibility by 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 16, 32". No source is quoted and I have been unable to verify this sentence. Sources suggest to me that the 64 shares can be split in any number of ways and has nothing to do with the divisibility in the text. Also, 64 is not divisible by 6. Bestendeavors (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it as unreferenced trivia. It’s not the only piece of trivia on this page. More generally, I have been contemplating a systematic weeding of trivia in the number articles. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the end of the year maybe we should consider removing almost all trivia from number articles, so as to start 2024 with a fresh cleanse, number-article-wise. Radlrb (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]