Talk:1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Cover more

If we're going to define the number one, I think we need to cover more. One is the identity in many number systems, not just multiplication over a ring.

I also think Peano's definition of number deserves a mention. And then we're into definitions of number, which is probably a more fruitful article, but one I'm not qualified to write. --Vicki Rosenzweig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 14:43, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

Proposed criteria for inclusion in "other meanings" section

If we're going to have a list... we should distinguish between

a) things that actually have something fundamental to do with one-ness or properties of the number one—these are IMHO the legitimate items. If there are any. And,

b) things that are associated with number 1 simply because they are the first of a numbered group of things (e.g. highway route numbers).

The latter should probably be characterized as '"trivia." Dpbsmith 12:01, 6 January 2004 (UTC)

In response to (b): can you assume that something was given the number 1 just because it happened to be the first, or was it given the number 1 because it's the most important of the set? Also, be careful to call things "trivia" if your POV is the only thing telling you its trivia. E.g., the Marvin Hammlisch song is trivia to me because I don't care about Broadway musicals, but it would be wrong for me to impose my sense of trivia on others. 141.217.200.131 22:39, 24 January 2004 (UTC)

In the example I gave (highway route numbers), those that are numbered "one" are indeed simply the first, not the most important. Re trivia: perhaps I shouldn't have used that word, but I gave an NPOV definition of what I meant by it. The Marvin Hamlisch song does not illustrate any particular property of the number "one." It is simply a song whose title happens to be "One." It doesn't have a very good claim to be mentioned in an article about "One," any more than Beethoven's Symphony No. 1, Brahms' Symphony No. 1, Mahler's Symphony No. 1, Rachmaninov's Symphony No. 1, or Sibelius' Symphony No. 1, none of which are trivial piece of music, but all of which are trivial examples of the number 1. Dpbsmith 01:47, 26 January 2004 (UTC)

I can see your point about it not being worthwhile to list all the Symphonies No. 1, there are too many of them and probably none of them illustrates oneness (though it reminds me about a particular Symphony No. 0 which is worth mentioning in the article on zero).

Does the Marvin Hamlisch song illustrate any properties of the number one? I don't know, I've probly never heard that song. Is that the song that says "one is the loneliest number"? Whatever song says that illustrates a property of the number one, and is worth including in this article.

As for the highways, 1 is often the most important national, state or local highways, and it might also be the first. For example, Michigan 1 is Woodward Avenue, which is the central north-south street of the metro Detroit area. Those numbers are not always given sequentially, but are instead matched up between properties of the number and properties of the highway, e.g., odd-numbered U.S. interstates are north-south highways. (I don't think state and local highways are worth listing, but national ones should be listed.) 141.217.173.168 16:31, 26 January 2004 (UTC)

Evolution of glyphs

I think the articles 0 - 9 ought to discuss how the glyph for the numeral in question evolved. In the case of 1, I was about to write in the article that its form has remained very stable through the many permutations by the Hindus and Arabs, but I'm holding off on that until I do a little more reading on the subject. PrimeFan 17:47, 3 February 2004 (UTC)

OK, what the heck....

I enjoyed piling on to the "one is also" list and contributing some trivia, and experienced a twinge of ego deflation when Eloquence deleted them. (And, worse yet, called it a "crap removal example." Crap? Crap? CRAP????!!! My inclusion of the Marvin Hamlisch song entitled One was certainly not crap, it was absolutely on target, scintillatingly clever, incontrovertibly encyclopedic, and I was about to self-nominate it for Brilliant Prose when—but I digress).

Anyway, I stared at the list, considered reverting the pageand thought about what I would actually appreciate finding if I followed a link to an article on One and decided Eloquence was right. Dpbsmith 23:19, 6 January 2004 (UTC)

...But, what the heck, if people think the "one is also" list DOES belong, darned if I'm getting left out of the party. So, I guess I will add those entries to the list. Dpbsmith 16:19, 12 February 2004 (UTC)

A page for the word "one"?

See discussion towards the end of Talk:List of numbers/Deletion.

If there is to be a separate page for one as a word (I'm pretty agnostic about that), then all the one stuff in the 1 (number) page must be moved over to this page, otherwise there will be confusion. Can such a division be maintained? See also Talk:One. -- Egil (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2004 (UTC)

Prefixes

Some of the number articles of Wikipedia have prefixes added to their tables; others don't. What's the problem?? Check to see which do and which don't. 66.245.0.163 20:35, 27 August 2004 (UTC)

hey

Doesn't all the stuff at the bottom of the list belong at the disambig page? Isn't that what disambig pages are for??? Revolver 09:43, 10 November 2004 (UTC)

Pee

I saw there was no mention of 1 in reference to urinating in the Human Society section, so I added it. Then I saw that there was a reference in "other fields". First, it seems more appropriate for it to be in "human society". Second, I see very little distinction between what goes in "human society and "other fields". The definition in "other fields" is better than the definition I have/had in "human society". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.177.114 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense. The "Other fields" section has grown haphazardly, and it was overdue for sorting. Anton Mravcek 20:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

One... The Movie

Maybe I was a bit harsh in calling the link to the One... The Movie a "spam link" in my edit summary, but the point of the "In film" section of the article is to talk about how the integer 1 is used by filmmakers, not to advertise films that are so new the IMDB is "awaiting 5 votes" before posting a user rating. PrimeFan 22:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No worries...offense can only be given when it is taken, and the spam comment was clearly over-the-top. Moreover, the film is not broadly available -- it is only currently showing in California -- so the description was meant to be just that (descriptive) and certainly could not even serve as an advertisement (how would anyone see it unless they lived in CA?) even if I had intended to, which I did not. I would also observe that the point of any encyclopedia article is to be both informative and interesting, not just one or the other. Just listing the movies by name is informative, but not at all interesting...especially-so when all the movies' names are basically the same ("One"). The other movies could have descriptions added as well, and thereby delete the current, boring info-without-interest character that this section currently has. --AustinKnight 05:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

My one cent on htis issue: ideally their is a breif description explaining why the movie has this number and not that number in the title, and theer is a link to an Wikipedia article about the movie. Numerao 20:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Unus

Shouldn't Unus/Una be included as the latin word for one? Wikisquared 17:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Money

What are we trying to do with the money section. A dollar bill is often called a one as in "Give me three ones" while a penny is never called a one. --Gbleem 23:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Right. I guess they're saying "[One is] The denomination in cents..." of the US penny, which is the "one cent piece". Herostratus 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, why only American and Canadian currency. Do we really want to add a notation for every currency? The Australian one dollar coins has kangaroos on it. I can't remember what the one cent coin had. What about New Zealand? British pounds? Are we going to describe all the different sides of the Euros? (I think it would be cool if we did.)RoseWill 11:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should have a table of denominations, countries and portraits, with links respectively to numbers, bank systems and people. Then the articles on numbers like 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000, etc., could provide a link to that table. Anton Mravcek 15:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

Resembles something that in itself represents a penis?

Come on people. Clear writing. You could also say it resembles a stick, resembles a hot dog resembles an obelisk represents a penis.

Please don't re revert. I mean, an obelisk? For christs sake.Thechosenone021 03:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, your text was speculative, which was why it was removed. Secondly, I've removed the "obelisk" text altogether, as it is a subjective assessment, and entirely dependant on which typeface you use. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was simply aiming for compromise in the text. The former, standing edit made an even larger assumption and I reduced the size of it. I don't mind if its removed, or stands as you have it now. The Obelisk thing is just ridiculous, is all i'm saying. ThanksThechosenone021 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - the obelisk reference was rather odd, and shouldn't have been there. It was a good call to do something about it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

smth interesting I found out

Every number that had no other digits in it but "1" can be divided only to prime numbers. For example, 111 can be divided to 37 and to 3, both prime numbers. I tried this with even rather large numbers (1111111) and so far it has worked. Can anyone confirm this? For god's sake, someone must write a post signing script for wiki ASAP. I'm sick of forgetting to write those 4 tildes at the end of each post. CommandoGuard 11:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're conjecturing, but our Repunit (factors) page should settle the matter. In particular, not every (non-trivial) factor of a repunit must be prime. Indeed any number with more than two prime factors will have nonprime proper factors: so 111111 = 3 · 7 · 11 · 13 · 37 has nonprime factors like 3 · 7 and 11 · 13 · 37, not to mention 111 = 3 · 37 and 1001 = 7 · 11 · 13. Even repunits with a prime number of 1s can have more than two prime factors: 1111111111111 = 53 · 79 · 265371653. 4pq1injbok 13:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm talking about the most basic level of the dividers. If you try to do the same with twos or threes, or any other number (9999999, for example), the most basic level of the dividers will have non-primes in it (in the very most of cases). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CommandoGuard~enwiki (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If your referring to divisors, your already wrong about numbers "that have no otehr digit but "1"" Look at 4pq1injbok's example: 111111 is divisible by the primes 3, 7, 11, 13, 37, but also by composites like 21, 33, 77, even the all 1s numbers 111. Numerao 22:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, I think this talk page is inappropriate for this type of discussion. This page is about talk on improving the page on number 1. Cheers :-) --dionyziz 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(More) Trivia

It seems to me that almost everything from "In Science" through to "Historial Years" is basically pointless trivia. Do we really need a list of companies and astronomical objects that have the number "1" in there somewhere? 140.184.40.104 (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

This article is a collection of trivia for the most part. I am not sure what exactly to do about this though, because there aren't precise trivia inclusion guidelines. If I just removed stuff willy-nilly people would argue that I left in X...why not leave in Z? Whatever the case though the article desperately needs a trim.

Also this article has exactly one :) reference and makes many claims that require verification. I suppose that removing unsourced info could be a launching point for cleaning up. I am open to suggestions. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 17:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If the trivium has something interesting about the number 1, that's one thing; but not everything that uses number 1 belongs in this article. Take them out. Dicklyon (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Unit Fractions

on the section about Egyptian unit fractions, it says that they express fractions in the form 1/n where n is an integer etc. but its says the exceptions are 2/3 and 3/4 but 3/4 would have been expressed as 1/2 + 1/4 wouldn't it? I don't know how to edit it though, could someone else do it? (if this is correct) Danelius (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Natural Numbers

The second sentence of this article, "It is the natural number following 0 and preceding 2" implies that 0 is a natural number, which it isn't. This should probably say something like "It is the first natural number, preceding 2". --82.5.17.21 11:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

this is thornier than wheter 1 is prime or not. If you skim the article on natural number, it tells you right off the bat that including 0 is optional. further down it mentions the notations N0 and N* (set of natural num.s with zero & w/o). I'm pretty sure I've seen both of these in math papers. Numerao 17:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the sentence implies anything about 0, and so it should stand as is. 1 is a natural number, and it follows 0, so it's the natural number following 0, and that's all the sentence really says. Cf. this analogous sentence from Glossary of Fencing Terms: "A counter-riposte is the offensive action following the parry of any riposte" -- I hope you'll agree this doesn't imply that a parry is an offensive action.

Furthermore, if we do rewrite this line, I'd rather change "natural number" to "integer" than lose the reference to 0. 4pq1injbok 00:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems best just to use "integer" as you suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.154 (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Handwriting international

It would be good, if the article would mention how the number is written in different countries. In the UK & the USA the number is often written just as a straight line, in Germany it is often written like an A without the middle line. In Brazil the number is often written with the low line just on the left side. It would be good, if someone could edit this. I am very new and do not know much about the editing. I don't have any sources, I just know people in those countries who write the number like that. --207.190.127.186 (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree - and also mention how the "7" is not crossed (generally speaking) in the UK and US, but is so in Germany (and if memory serves, in France and in some other western European countries - no data yet to back that up).

The story relating to the numbers of angles in each numeral was taught to me in school in the UK back in the early 60s; do we know for certain that this is a myth, and if so, how far back does it stretch? AncientBrit (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Extra list info

I'm trying to do a semi-rewrite of the article, at least removing the list and replacing it with prose. As such... I'm going to be moving some of the list content here. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• In Boolean algebra, 1 corresponds to true.
• One is a harmonic divisor number.

Useful but not where it was

For any number x:

x·1 = 1·x = x (1 is the multiplicative identity)

x/1 = x (see division)

x¹ = x, 1^x = 1, and for nonzero x, x⁰ = 1 (see exponentiation)

This just re-iterates that one is the multiplicative identity so moving here instead of having it clutter the page for the time being. —— nixeagle^{email me} 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Request: section on history

A section on the history of the number 1 would be useful. For example, the ancient Greeks didn't consider 1 to be a number, because it wasn't a multiplicity, so the first odd number was 3 -- but they still effectively used 1 in arithmetic.

I mention this because Evenness of zero links here, and it would be good for this article to present more of an explanation. Melchoir (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Unity

A section or paragraph on when unity is used to mean one might be useful; it's something I'm not totally clear on myself. --Jonnty (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC).

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A new definition of One

Can we add to the page: Mathematical 1 means the infinite set of calculations equalling 1: e.g. (2-1,3-2,0.999... etc.)Tristan Tondino (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? I mean, it can be made to be true, in a sense, but I don't think any mathematician actually uses it that way. Do you have a WP:RS that uses mathematical numbers that way? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'll look around for something. I would think this should be in set theory somewhere. The side bar on the right does offer representations in glyphs.Tristan Tondino (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this the Primary Topic instead of a dab?

I need a little help here. Can anyone directly reference either a WP Policy or simply a thorough logical explanation as to why One is a primary topic about the number as opposed to a dab with either a simple definition or link to wiktionary listed at the top? Anything other than "it's already a good article, so we should keep it" please. Thanks! ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The purpose for this request concerns a WP policy amendment currently being discussed here. Thank you. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Languages

Why are there multiple versions of number 1, written in different languages, on the right hand table? Seems to me like a lot of trivia. I could just easily look at the number 1 in different languages on the left hand side in the other wikipedias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 04:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Article

Hey guys, can we lock this thing? There's a ton of vandalizing on this article already. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Digital Digits

What about adding digital digits, as one more detail about the number (like its look in different languages you added).

Digital Digits usually come in black (in calculators and clocks, red, sometimes green, and rarely blue). It's basic is the digit 8 (all the digits can be created using it). 1 and 7 sometimes look different. I have no idea who invented this. Does anybody knows?

When using not just digits, but also letters the basic is 8 with + and x in it. Galzigler (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There are all sorts of variations in fonts, handwriting styles and display styles, including many different ways digits are displayed by LED and LCDs. So there are many different ways of writing the digit '1', I don't see why this one should be highlighted here. It is anyway already covered at Seven-segment display.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of this?

It's the lonliest number, I mean two can be as bad as one, it is the lonliest number since the number one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.24.49.1 (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Properties of 1

Maybe in this article we could add a section about the properties of 1, ie it's the identity number of multiplication because 1x = x or that it is the identity number of division like multiplication because x/1 = 1... And also we could add that any number to the power of 1 = the number like 7¹ = 7 the properties are endless and it would sure help on expanding the article. Any objections? --Geo7777 (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Well there is a section As a number, and another Mathematics taht this is in already or could go in. Could prune back the sports section, so that only world famous people are in it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

What, no numerology?

Even though it's such a fascinating subject? Redge (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources please be bold and add it. Roger (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First vs. 1st

Well, first off, there's no mention of "first" in the article at all. I came here (thanks to a disambig at "1st") trying to find out whether "1st" is appropriate to use (vs. "first") in any context other than as an ordinal number. Clearly, using "2nd" as a unit of time is improper, but what about "1st"? For example, what if I had started this off by saying "Well, 1st off, there's no mention of..."? 71.87.23.22 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

1^∞ is e

It is a mathematical property that one to the infinity power equals e. Proof can be found here http://www.vitutor.com/calculus/limits/one_infinity.html Certainly it requires higher mathematics, but is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B787 300 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

1^∞ is an indeterminate form. Since log(1) = 0, we have

1^∞ = exp(log(1) × ∞) = exp(0 × ∞).

Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• 1 (number) → One
• 2 (number) → Two
• 3 (number) → Three
• 4 (number) → Four
• 5 (number) → Five
• 6 (number) → Six
• 7 (number) → Seven
• 8 (number) → Eight
• 9 (number) → Nine

– As per WP:NATURAL and many other reasons. First, all of the proposed titles currently redirect to the article on their respective number. (Nine currently takes you to, of course, 9 (number).) Second, in English it's most common to refer to single-digit numbers by their spelled-out names, not by their glyph/numeral. Third, the current titles all need disambiguation from, say, 3 (which is about the year 3 A.D.). Unlike with numbers, years are virtually never spelled out. I cannot imagine anyone searching for "five" expecting anything but the number 5. If they are, Five (disambiguation) is just a click away. Fourth, style guides all tend to (or is that ("two"?) uniformly suggest spelling them out. I am aware there may have once been a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on this issue, but in any case I think it's overruled by WP:COMMONNAME. This message will self-destruct in five, four, three, two, one... Red Slash 00:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Weak oppose. For the most part, it doesn't matter where the article is located, but:

1. WP:COMMONNAME is not policy, and it doesn't "require" the most common name, only a common name.
2. It would require rewriting a number of bots which check for anomalies on number articles.
3. You haven't notified WP:WikiProject Numbers.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to the assertions of some editors, consistency is one of the goals of article naming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Split apart all these articles.
  1. There is disambguatory information on them that should be at 1 (disambiguation) , 2 (disambiguation) , 3 (disambiguation) , 4 (disambiguation) , 5 (disambiguation) , 6 (disambiguation) , 7 (disambiguation) , 8 (disambiguation) , 9 (disambiguation)
  2. These articles are conflating the glyph with the number. This should not be occurring. The history of the shape of the glyph "5" should be separate from the meaning of the number "5", since the number 5 can be represented as "Five" or "V", etc. So these should all be split off into 1 (glyph) , 2 (glyph) , 3 (glyph) , 4 (glyph) . 5 (glyph) , 6 (glyph) , 7 (glyph) , 9 (glyph) , 9 (glyph) (and 0 (glyph))

  -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support split proposal by 76.65.128.222. — |J~Pæst|  23:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. In this case, WP:NATURAL is not a very compelling argument to warrant a page move. Furthermore, WP:COMMONNAME also states that "Editors should also consider [WP:CRITERIA] outlined above". One of the rules listed in WP:CRITERIA is Consistency: "The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". All the articles in Category:Integers use the parenthetical disambiguation format X (number). And as per WP:NCDAB, "If there is a choice between using natural and parenthetical disambiguation ... there is no hard rule about which is preferred ... The choice between them is made by consensus, taking into account general naming criteria (e.g., consistency with the pattern used for similar articles)" (emphasis added). In addition, another rule in WP:CRITERIA is Naturalness: "The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for". Although most style guide prefer single-digit numbers spelled out, no evidence has been provided yet that suggests that most users are more likely to enter the word "one" instead of the numeral "1" into the search engine. Thus, I support the status quo and retain the current disambiguation format. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Makes sense. @76.65.128.222 please let's not have separate articles per glyph. We use the European digits because this is the English language Wikipedia and those are the digits used in that language. Each of these article has an infobox showing the glyphs in other writing systems. It would be good to develop sections about how those numbers are written in other writing systems but I don't think that requires separate articles yet. --Moyogo/ (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • This is conflating a symbol with a number. We do not conflate the letter-"I" with I (pronoun), but that is exactly what these articles do. Why have separate pages for letter-I and word-I? In English we use "II", "2", "two" to represent the number two, so whatever else, English does not use "2" to solely represent the number. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I've seen no evidence the number two is actually normally referred to by the word two. What sources are being used? English literature? Plus is that really the best and most reliable source on numbers? Dmcq (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL. Small numbers, whole numbers smaller than ten, should be spelled out. [1]. This is pretty standard style in reliable sources. Some style guides say to spell out numbers less than 100. --B2C 03:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. No reason to overturn past consensus here. 1 (number) etc. are named consistently with other numbers. Within mathematics and science, WP:COMMONNAME suggests "1" etc. as the title, not "one" etc.. And searching for "one" etc. finds the articles via the redirects, so there's no problem there that needs fixing. -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Articles whose titles are the number words might be useful if the numbers' names are special in any particular way. One interesting thought is that according to Wiktionary, four starts with f because one of the steps it has gone through in becoming what it is is starting with the same sound as five. (Had it not gone through this step, the word would have started with wh; the source is that it comes from a PIE root with kw, which usually yields English wh.) Specifically, go to the Proto-Germanic root "fedwōr". However, the site doesn't reveal why the word four has gone through this step. Perhaps an article titled Four might talk about how the number 4 got its name in English, starting with how the Proto-Indo-European root word was derived. Wiktionary's appendix already reveals information about the PIE numerals for some numbers, including 5, which it says that it is a derivation from the words for fist and finger. Georgia guy (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: you should probably also post this at Talk:4_(number) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought RMBot tagged all of 2 through 9, once the request was made properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • That had already been done (in this edit). Thank you, though. — |J~Pæst|  09:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
        • That's the wrong edit. [2] is the one that added a message about the content. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      • No, RMCDbot has absolutely nothing to do with it, why would RMCDbot be concerned with the content of articles? Or how to copy comments from one page to another? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Oh, sorry; Arthur and I did not realize which information you were referring to. — |J~Pæst|  11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I indented to comment to show what it was referring to. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: You forgot 0 (number) → Zero. — |J~Pæst|  09:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Since that wasn't in the original proposal, and since 0 is a bit of a special case, it should be decided separately. -- 202.124.88.24 (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the reason for this "(number)" is that the year articles are the main articles for each digit. But since there aren't a year 0 in the common (western) calendar system, should it not be just '0' as the number article? Currently, it is a disambiguation page which has 0 (number) and 0 (year) as its two first entries. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose It is more common as 1 but that is not what is proposed here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I initially though these requests to be a somewhat unusual request until examining other examples wherein glyphs have been converted into text. pi, Omega (and the rest of the Greek alphabet used in math) not to mention most of the numerals linked to in Numeral (linguistics). Seems like an appropriate candidate for WP:NATURAL as well.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Two differences there are (1) those articles don't form part of a set, the way numbers do (why One but not Thirty-one or One hundred and fifty-three?) and (2) Greek letters are less likely search terms. -- 202.124.89.29 (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Well most style manuals (including wikipedia's I might add (MOS:NUMERAL)) call for numbers one through nine, or in the case of the Chicago Manual of Style zero through one hundred, to be spelled out. They are summarized into figures thereafter. In terms of search terms, Omega (spelled out and not as a glyph) gets more page hits than 1 (number), same goes for Infinity (spelled out) so I don't know what basis you are making your argument.[3][4][5]--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Those style manuals only apply to some (non-mathematical and non-data) uses, so I don't see them as relevant. On searching Google, the digits 1, 2, 3, etc. seem to be used significantly more often than the words "one," "two," "three," etc. (even in books that is true for most numbers). And even if you were right, per WP:Title, consistency with all the other numbers is a very powerful reason to keep the status quo. -- 202.124.88.24 (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an article not a mathematical equation or data table so I will respectively disagree as the relevance of the styles guides. Your search is flawed in that for the digits it will pull a number from anywhere, not simply from prose; it would include page numbers, numbers that appears in the middle of a figure (any digit that is more that two numbers), etc. The Ngram also doesn't show any of the digits to be more used than the prose particualrly when the date range is expanded to 2008, so I'm not sure where the "significantly more" conclusion is coming from. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could provide better figures? Dmcq (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

All search engine results will likely be fatally flawed in this case because searches aren’t limited to prose.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Ngram clearly shows that for 3, 5, and 9, the single digits are used more than the words, even if you take it to 2008. Perhaps you were misreading the graph. Try this one. And these articles are primarily about mathematical objects, so mathematical usage has some relevance, surely. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics uses digits rather than words, when the numbers themselves are being discussed. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I see that there is a (very slight) majority of "oppose" votes. The final close will therefore almost certainly be "no consensus, keep it as it is." Which is exactly what would be expected for a naming scheme that arose out of massive debate, a special project (WP:WikiProject Numbers), and a consensus that wasn't just local. -- 202.124.74.2 (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – Users will more likely type the number, not their spelling. The disambiguator is taken care of by search prediction. --Article editor (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

One - spelling

Recently, I made an edit adding this: "One is the only number which has its letters in reverse alphabetical order (each letter alphabetically precedes the letter that comes before it)."

It was reverted on the grounds that it "Needs citation and sounds like trivia."

I don't want to add it back in without asking first, as I'm still quite new here and might be unaware of a policy that would mean my edit is not allowed.

Forty contains a similar sentence: "This makes it the only number which, when spelled out in full, has its letters in alphabetical order." (and additionally has no citation for it), so I would assume a converse fact about reverse alphabetical order would be allowed, but I take on the point about the citation.

Would this be a valid link? - http://www.rinkworks.com/words/numbers.shtml

So, should I add back in my fact, and is the above link a valid citation? Bilorv (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still trivia, at least to me. Many words have 'interesting' properties like this but we don't tend to note it in articles. This article is not about the word 'one' but the number 1. It happens to be called 'one' in English, a word that has the property you describe, but that tells the reader nothing about the number.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 08:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

For trivia Wikipedia tends to require a better source than some random page on the web. See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If you can find a book which says it is an interesting property that would probably be sufficient. People paying for something is some sort of proof of interest. Dmcq (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that from the 40 article. Thanks for pointing it out. Articles like this tend to accumulate cruft so we should always ensure stuff has citations. Dmcq (talk) 10:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Removing both is consistent, and thanks for pointing out WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bilorv (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Religion

I have added in the religion section over and over again. Please don't revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manatba (talk • contribs) 06:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're not just adding a reference to there being one God in Islam - you're also adding text that (while important to your faith) is not germaine to the topic of the article. Perhaps if you were to only add the first sentence of your text, you might find that it is better received. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As a "guilty" reverter, I wholeheartedly agree with CKatz. Budgiekiller 06:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also in Quran, one name of God(Allah) is The One(Al Waheed). Veyselperu (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

In technology - used in Binary code

user:SheriffIsInTown recently changed "Used in binary code along with 0." into "Used in binary code and represents the value for "on" which means that electricity is flowing." with a nice reference. Unfortunately, what Chris Woodford is saying in his book is wrong.

Although 0 / 1 can be used as a label to a switch on a piece of equipment to signify that it is ON or OFF, and yes in this case 1 means ON and means that electricity is flowing. It is quite different for binary logic in computers. Originally, the earliest gates where based on TTL technology, where 1 meant (and still means) a high state given by a pull up resistor. A zero state is obtained by drawing current to the ground. So in that technology there is current flowing for a ZERO, and no current for a ONE. Now, most digital logic circuits are based on CMOS technology, where there is no current flowing for either 0 or 1. Both 0 and 1 are just states of low and high. In a low (0) state, the bottom transistor is open, the top one is closed. In a high (1) state, the bottom transistor is closed, the top one is open. Current actually flows during a brief time when there is a change of state, due to parasitic capacitive loads and the fact that during a transition, both transistors are partially open. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

You can replace the sourced text with your text with a source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This is hardly Original research. It's common knowledge to any electronics engineer. But, let's do this again, step by step:

Here is why the statement by Chris Woodford is wrong:

1. check the TTL logic page:

"Inputs both logical ones. When all the inputs are held at high voltage, the base–emitter junctions of the multiple-emitter transistor are reverse-biased. Unlike DTL, a small “collector” current (approximately 10µA) is drawn by each of the inputs. This is because the transistor is in reverse-active mode. An approximately constant current flows from the positive rail, through the resistor and into the base of the multiple emitter transistor.[12] This current passes through the base-emitter junction of the output transistor, allowing it to conduct and pulling the output voltage low (logical zero).

An input logical zero. Note that the base-collector junction of the multiple-emitter transistor and the base-emitter junction of the output transistor are in series between the bottom of the resistor and ground. If one input voltage becomes zero, the corresponding base-emitter junction of the multiple-emitter transistor is in parallel with these two junctions. A phenomenon called current steering means that when two voltage-stable elements with different threshold voltages are connected in parallel, the current flows through the path with the smaller threshold voltage. That is, current flows out of this input and into the zero (low) voltage source. As a result, no current flows through the base of the output transistor, causing it to stop conducting and the output voltage becomes high (logical one). During the transition the input transistor is briefly in its active region; so it draws a large current away from the base of the output transistor and thus quickly discharges its base. This is a critical advantage of TTL over DTL that speeds up the transition over a diode input structure."

Actually, in the cases of both 0 and 1, current is flowing, but as you can see from the schematic of a gate ,

the resistance R1 connected to the base of V1 is much higher than the resistance R3 connected to the collector of V3, which means that when the input if brought to ground for an output of 1, the current is much smaller than when the input of brought to VCC for an output of 0. In other words, a ZERO draws more current than a 1.

You can refer to the 74LS00 datasheet, page 4: I_CCH typ 4mA vs I_CCL typ 12mA;

You can also refer to https://books.google.com/books?id=Yk8vBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=consumption+of+TTL+gates+in+0++and+1+state&source=bl&ots=m5nwyJiyuV&sig=mng1YMQQNcXJjzngrXSmw-ODJyQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin2ovv69nLAhXEvIMKHQhNAZQQ6AEIUjAJ#v=onepage&q=%20The%20gate%20power%20consumption%20is%20therefore%20significantly%20higher%20in%20the%200%20output%20state&f=false page 36:

The gate power consumption is therefore significantly higher in the 0 output state

2. concerning the CMOS gate, current "flows" for an N-type transistor when G=High(1), and when G=Low(0) for a P-type transistor . I put 'flow' in quotes because no current actually flows unless there is a load connected to distinct voltage level. So, in a gate, which combines both N-type and P-type transistors there is potential current flowing in the 0-state when the output is connected to 1, through a load, and potential current flowing in the 1-state when the output is connected to a zero through a load.

In summary, in the early days with TTL technology, the statement of Chris Woodford was just the opposite of reality. Now with CMOS technology, it is neither working that way or the opposite way. Current flows depends on where the load is connected, and with most gates being connected to other gates, there is virtually no load, but instead, as mentioned above, most of the current is spent during transistions of states.

So, would you agree to remove your erroneous statement and reference?

Concerning the initial sentence "(1 is) Used in binary code along with 0. Do you actually want a external reference? Seriously?

Concerning the use of 0/1 to mark ON/OF switches, a quick internet search provides quite a few examples: . There may not be a peer-reviewed article on the subject, but this is verifiable information.

Concerning the country calling code for the US, Canada and 23 groups of islands. This is listed in the page linked. Do you need an external reference for that? Again that is verifiable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhrm77 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The physical method for representing the binary digits in computer is out of scope here. Moreover, one may not talk of a specific physical method, when there are many (in various types of storage device, in transmission channels (electrical, radio or optical) and in computer cores). Therefore "Used in binary code and represents the value for "on" which means that electricity is flowing." is wrong, as "binary code" is an abstract notion which is independent from any physical device. For this reason, I'll revert to the original formulation "Used in binary code along with 0." Please, don't modify it before reaching a consensus here. D.Lazard (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

One liner "binary 1 is used along 0" is not good enough to describe binary 1, there should be more information, please add more information using the sources you like if you do not like the source added by me. You need to describe what binary 1 does in computing. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement "Used in binary code and represents the value for "on" which means that electricity is flowing." is at best ambiguous, and at worse just plain wrong. Nobody really counts in binary (outside of teaching it), so that base is mainly considered to be used as the inner language of computers; And therefore associating ONES and ZEROES to a current that is flowing or not flowing gives the WRONG idea about how computers work. The second reference you added is fine, assuming for example that a pixel is represented by an LED, then a 1 is represented as a lit LED, which means current is flowing. But that's just a representation in order to visualize zeroes and ones. In a computer, zeroes and ones are just different states, just different voltages, typically 0V versus 5V or 3.3V. With current technology, current is no more flowing in one state or the other. If you insist in talking about current, you could say that "1 can be represented as current flowing, and 0 as current not flowing". That would be acceptable, but the way it is now is misleading. You can associate 0s and 1s to OFF and ON states (in the sense of being absent vs present, disabled vs enabled, invalid vs valid...) and you can associate OFF and ON (in an electrical sense) to current not flowing vs current flowing, but you can't transit directly from binary to current flowing or not, because in the process you use different meanings of the words OFF and ON. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1 (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/20090609170451/http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros1-175.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEsaros/SEsaros1-175.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5Pp20VQlI?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov%2Feclipse%2FLEsaros%2FLEsaros1-175.html to http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEsaros/LEsaros1-175.html

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) 01:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

1 in foreign languages

In many foreign languages, the word for 1 varies depending on whether you're using it in a sentence (there is one cat) or counting 1, 2, 3... Does Wikipedia talk about this statement anywhere?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You are referring to the difference between a numeral (name) and an ordinal. In English, we say "He is number one" as well as "He is first". See also English numerals. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Not even close. I'm referring to a statement about 1 in different languages that is similar to the following in English:

When used in a sentence, 1 is often a or an; when counting it's always one. Georgia guy (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Factorization of 1

I have fixed the Factorization value in the infobox, which was wrong (1 is not a prime) to "Empty product" link under symbol "∅", which I am however not totally comfortable with, since it is exactly "empty set". If the "1" was intentional and meant special factorization case for number one instead of a value 1, I think it should have had an explanatory footnote or so. —Mykhal (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The empty set with a piped link to empty product seems both correct and proper. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. So does Jeffrey Shallit in APL Quote Quad, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Winter 1976), 36-37. It's also the consensus answer at Mathematics Stack Exchange. Wolfram MathWorld, on the other hand, states that 1, by definition, has a prime factorization of "1" but doesn't argue that case. (Possibly because a prime factorization is a set of primes, and 1 has no business being in such a set.) On balance, I think Mykhal's edit is a very welcome improvement to the page. Certes (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

+1 — JFG ^talk 00:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathematical Facts

I removed a bunch of mathematical facts which, while the statements contains the number 1, are not about the number 1, and are barely encyclopedic in nature at that.

For example: "1 is one of three possible values of the Möbius function" - this isn't the slightest bit interesting in the context of the number 1. There are tons of things which can have value -1, 0, or +1, and listing all of them is pointless and actively disruptive to readers.

Somebody reverted it, so I suppose we need a debate. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You removed a lot more than the statement about the Mobius function. For example, you removed the representation of 1 as a Dedekind cut. The relation with Tamagawa numbers is worthwhile, the standard inside joke apparently being about "Tamagawa numbers" all being one (though there is naturally more to the story than this). The fact that "base 1" is the tally number system is also relevant to the subject, and follows the pattern for other articles with other low number bases. Normalization consists of making something have a value 1. This is a standard technique in applied mathematics, and seems quite appropriate for discussion in an article about this number. The fact that Egyptian fractions have numerators of 1 is a significant historical application of this number (the Egyptians considered the divisions of one unit into parts to be fundamental to the arithmetic of fractions). So, I arrive at quite the opposite conclusion. Most of the removed material is not pointless, is about the number 1, and is encyclopedic in nature. For the most part, it deserves a more extensive treatment, not removal. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my position on all your listed examples. The representation of 1 as a Dedekind cut is exactly the type of trivial nonsense I want to remove. As far as representation of the natural numbers are concerned, the construction of the number 1 is mathematically interesting; as a real number, the construction of the number 1 is exactly the same as for every other number, and is not interesting.

I have never heard of a Tamagawa number and an "inside joke" shouldn't be notability for this page; Weil's conjecture on Tamagawa numbers is about Tamagawa numbers, not the number 1.

The sentence on number bases is pure definitional weasel-words about what positional notation means. The fact might be notable, but as it stands it seems better to start over from scratch.

Normalization is about a range from 0 to 1; which is not about the number 1.

Egyptian fractions are notable in the context of fractions, but not about the number 1. The fact that 2/3 is an exception proves this.

Power~enwiki (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that an integer is the unique one with a certain nontrivial arithmetical property, like the Tamagawa number, is a standard thing that encyclopedia articles about integers. I suppose you're right about the Dedekind cut. Normalization is most definitely about the number 1, not the interval. We often normalize a vector or function to give it norm 1. There is no reasonable debate on this point. See unary numeral system for the discussion of the number system based on 1. It clearly belongs in the article and is encyclopedic, just like base 2 is mentioned in 2, base 3 in 3, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The sentence on normalization says "In many mathematical and engineering equations, numeric values are typically normalized to fall within the unit interval from 0 to 1, where 1 usually represents the maximum possible value in the range of parameters." which is a different definition of normalization than you are using. I'm adding a revised sentence on tally-ing as base-1 to the current article. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Because the number 1 has so many properties, we should probably apply criteria at the stricter end of the normal scale to keep the article manageable. My thoughts:

• Tally - weak keep, as 1 is special in this respect.
• Dedekind cut - delete. 1.0 is not a special value here (its cut looks just like that for 2.0 or 3.0). 1 is the number of cuts which represent a given number, but 1 is the number of lots of other unique things and we don't have room for them all.
• Normalise - weak delete. 1 is special here but it's really about the range (0,1).
• OEIS - delete as trivia, having already mentioned that many sequences begin 1,...
• Möbius - delete. Möbius divides integers into three categories, one of which happens to be conventionally called 1. That's not a mathematical property.
• Totient - delete. φ(n) is one of the many sequences that begin 1,... and not a particularly special one.
• 1-Perfect - delete. Trivial result as 1 + ... + n = n can only work for n=1.
• Egyptian fraction - delete. The fact concerns reciprocals of integers, and their numerator being 1 is incidental.
• Tamagawa numbers - delete, because they make my head hurt and are probably not mainstream enough to interest the likely audience for this article.

- Certes (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Jacob Lurie's result on Weil conjectures most definitely is mainstream mathematics. It is practically the definition of "mainstream". Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps "approachable" would have been a better word. For me, the fact about Tamagawa numbers stands out from the others as demanding a much deeper understanding of mathematics than can safely be assumed of some readers investigating the topic 1. Certes (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems like, apart from Tamagawa numbers and "normalize" (which, as noted, does have a definition that fits here), there's a consensus. I'll re-do the rest of the updates with noted changes. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I support the updated language regarding normalize in its entirety. I still don't see how Tamagawa numbers are relevant here. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Scoring rules

I have removed scoring rules for various sports; those are off-topic trivia. I kept the roles traditionally assigned to "jersey #1" players in teams, because such players can be called "1". — JFG ^talk 22:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Retired Player Numbers

Some number pages contain the list of all US sports franchises that have retired that number for a player, many do not. This would ideally be consistent for all pages from 0 to 99. Any preferences as to whether this should be on the "number" page (e.g. 8), the "disambiguation" page (e.g. 22), or a new stand-alone page (i.e. 1 (sports uniform number) ) Power~enwiki (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea of a set of pages devoted to sports uniform numbers makes me feel very sad. Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that topic merits a single page: retired number. There is a list of retired numbers in association football, not organised numerically but with a sortable table. Perhaps an enthusiast could do the same for all sports (with "sport" as an additional column). The question then becomes: how (if at all) should that be linked from 1 etc? Lots of things have serial numbers - districts, locomotives, film sequels... - so we can't and shouldn't list them all in 1. Certes (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not personally opposed to removing them from the number pages entirely; a few cases are individually notable but there's no need to have pages organizing this by number if per-sport pages already exist. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone has gone to some trouble to produce this material and presumably thinks it should be included in Wikipedia, even if many of us would prefer not to have it cluttering 1 etc. Is it worth creating a new page, List of retired numbers by number or similar, as a repository into which the deleted text can be transferred, with suitable edit summaries for attribution? If we're going to keep text such as The jersey number 1 has been retired by several ... sports teams, as seems reasonable, then we could even add a section link to List of...#1. That might keep everyone happy without too much effort. I can help if you wish: if you just keep on deleting then I can easily copy the deleted text from the diffs. Of course, there is lots more cruft unrelated to sports jerseys, but it's a start. Certes (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Certes: I agree; I would suggest preserving the material in a List of retired numbers in sports, which would point to the existing specific articles for football, baseball, etc., and include the remaining entries for miscellaneous sports. We don't need one such list per number; the natural classification is by sports. — JFG ^talk 22:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And such trivia should not be linked from 1 or any other number pages. — JFG ^talk 22:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sub-pages of retired number (i.e. List of Major League Baseball retired numbers) already include all of this information, I'm not sure we need a new page. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have preserved some more from number 4 article at Talk:4#Retired jersey numbers — JFG ^talk 22:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And I have done the same from 5 to 21, see for example Talk:21 (number)#Retired jersey numbers; the preserved trivia includes racecar numbers too. For 22 and beyond, I hope some kind soul can take over… — JFG ^talk 00:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you JFG. I can carry on from 22 if no one objects. Do we have consensus for creating List of retired numbers in sports (good title), or is that a question for a different forum? If we want such a page then I would probably go with the numerical format (sections 1, 2, 3..), at least initially. There's some value in keeping it that way to answer the question "Who wore 22?". Alternatively, once complete, the page could be reformatted in one of two ways:

1. into sections by sport, with some sections being merged away into the main "numbers" articles of those sports which have them.
2. as a sortable table - best of both worlds but a lot of work

- Certes (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and create the page. Indeed, the excerpts from various number page trivia are already arranged by number, so that makes things easier originally. Given the contents available, I would advise to create a section for jersey numbers and a section for racecar numbers, then have a subsection per number. Good luck! — JFG ^talk 10:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've created phase one of List of retired numbers in sports. Perhaps this is a good point to pause and see if it gets speedily deleted as unreferenced before adding any more. Were there any lists for 2 or 3 to fill the empty sections? Certes (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes; looks like I didn't copy those over to the talk pages: see Old revision of 2 and Old revision of 3. — JFG ^talk 13:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw those. Thanks for removing that dross, but I don't think any of it belongs on the new page. Certes (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, these revisions only have a few numbers for racecar drivers. Jersey numbers were deleted earlier in 2013: see Old revision of 3. Couldn't find the same massive list of jerseys in the history of 2. — JFG ^talk 13:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Merging now done. I've laid out List of retired numbers in sports in the most widely used format - by number then by sport. I hope the more sporting editors will fill in any gaps, particularly citations. Certes (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

List of retired numbers in sports has now received a {{Proposed deletion}} tag, which I have removed for reasons explained at Talk:List of retired numbers in sports. Certes (talk) 11:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

"the name of the glyph representing that number"

There is a weird phrase "the name of the glyph representing that number" in the first sentence that seems circular and redundant. I've tried to reason with an editor about deleting it but they say "compare with our other number articles" which actually don't have this phrase. Volunteer1234 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

"2 (Two; /ˈtuː/ (About this sound listen)) is a number, numeral, and glyph." "3 (three; /ˈθriː/) is a number, numeral, and glyph." etc Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

This article has a section on the digit 1, including the glyph which represents it, so it seems reasonable to mention it briefly in the lead. Certes (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done – I applied the same wording as with other single-digit numbers: "1 is a number, numeral and glyph." No idea why the convoluted wording should be considered better. — JFG ^talk 01:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

Multiplicative identity

Why does Multiplicative identity redirect here? It should be separated as a new article like Additive identity, Additive inverse, and Multiplicative inverse. --Octra Bond 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Good question. --:| TelCoNaSpVe :| (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, "1" plays a significant role in the axiom schema of induction, that has nothing to do with multiplication but rather with addition. 185.46.78.49 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

number, digit, numeral

The entry for 1 says "1 (one, also called unit, unity, and (multiplicative) identity) is a number, numeral, and glyph", so the terms are differnt, but do they mean the same as those used in the entry for 0 ? Could somebody add in parentheses succinctly the difference between the terms number, digit and numeral? --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The wording for 0 is better.  Fixed D.Lazard (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"Square root of 1" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Square root of 1. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

the real number 1 as a recurring decimal: 1.000...

Does this statement make sense? Adding a reference would enhance the article --Backinstadiums (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

It is correct as an exact number the way it is in math. In science, however, "1" as a measurement can be anything between 0.5 and 1.5 unless it is written as 1.0 (with 2 significant figures.) Georgia guy (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Georgia guy: "In science "1" as a measurement can be anything between 0.5 and 1.5" Could you please elaborate a bit on that? what academic reference supports it? The wikipedia article 1 does not mention it --Backinstadiums (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

My addition of the following paragraph (with slight markup change) was reverted by D.Lazard as being "too technical":

In mathematics 1 is the multiplicative identity, in that any number multiplied by 1 returns that number. As a consequence of this identity, any number exponentiated by zero returns 1, the factorial of zero is also 1, and 1 is its own factorial and root for any given degree. Excluding the case of zeroth roots, the only roots of unity in the real numbers are -1 and 1; however, in the complex numbers there are infinitely many such roots that entail many interesting properties that connect algebra and geometry. While historically considered prime, 1 has generally been excluded from the prime numbers since the second half of the 20th century.

Given the importance of 1 in mathematics, I think the following should be in the lead:

• That any number times 1 is that number (with or without the phrase "multiplicative identity").
• That it was historically considered prime but not (generally) anymore

The rest is admittedly a bit technical (although still important for the body). Would the following work?

In mathematics 1 is the multiplicative identity, in that any number multiplied by 1 returns that number. Several properties of exponentiation, roots, and factorials arise from this identity. While historically considered prime, 1 has generally been excluded from the prime numbers since the second half of the 20th century.

I think it's mathematically sufficient without being too technical.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, this is a paragraph written for mathematicians, not for the layman. Moreover, the historical assertion seems wrong, the convention that 1 is not prime is much older. Instead, I suggest to remove "multiplicative identity" from the first paragraph, and to add as a second paragraph:

The fundamental mathematical property of 1 is to be a multiplicative identity, that is any number multiplied by 1 returns that number. Most if not all properties of 1 can be deduced from this. In advanced mathematics, a multiplicative identity is often denoted 1, even if it is not a number. 1 is not a prime number.

D.Lazard (talk) 09:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm mostly fine with that (and it appears you're right about the primality reading the article on primes); I'd just remove the ref tag and rewrite the prime sentence as "1 is by convention not considered a prime number; although universal today, this was a matter of some controversy until the mid-20th century." – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

References

"User:Acctry3" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Acctry3. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

"User:Shayedmollah312" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect User:Shayedmollah312. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"🄂" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect 🄂 should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 22#🄂 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"❶" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ❶. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Section "As a digit"

This is ridiculous, but since D Lazar is threatening a block over this, I figure we need to discuss it.

The lead makes it clear that there is a difference between a number and the written symbols for that number. (And also the words for that number, but he deleted that.)

However, in the text the concepts of number, numeral and digit are confused. A number obviously can't have a line drawn through it, since it's an abstract quantity. There's also a difference between 'digit' and 'glyph', which the editor doesn't understand but is edit-warring over anyway.

The glyph used today in the Western world to represent the number 1, a vertical line, often with a serif at the top and sometimes a short horizontal line at the bottom, traces its roots back to the Brahmic script of ancient India, where it was a simple vertical line. It was transmitted to Europe via Arabic during the Middle Ages.

There are several glyphs for 1 used today. X-height and capital height, with and without serifs, those are all different glyphs for 1. We mean the digit 1. If we want to used the word 'glyph', we need to put it in the plural.

It's arguable whether we should use the word "number" here or not. The digit is also used for e.g. the number 21, which isn't the number 1 but in English does contain the numeral "one". Though "numeral" isn't perfect wording either, since the digit is found in e.g. 11 which isn't the numeral or the number.

As for the serif at top but a "short horizontal line" at bottom, that's what a serif is! 1 often has a half serif at top, even in handwriting, and a full serif at bottom in print, though in old-fashioned typefaces there may be a full serif at top and bottom.

Also, AFAIK the Brahmi numerals are not traced back to the Brahmi script itself, and 1 was not transmitted via the Arabic language, which of course doesn't have digits. I hadn't fixed those, but might as well point them out. So, the para would be better as,

The digit used today in the Western world to represent the numeral [or number] 1, a vertical line which often has a half [or left] serif at the top and (in print) a full serif at bottom, traces its roots back to the Brahmi numerals of ancient India, where it was a simple vertical line. It was transmitted to Europe as one of the Arabic numerals during the Middle Ages.

Next para, more confusion.

In some countries, the serif at the top is sometimes extended into a long upstroke, sometimes as long as the vertical line, which can lead to confusion with the glyph for seven in other countries. Whereas the number 1 is written with a long upstroke, the number 7 has a horizontal stroke through the vertical line.

Again, there are many glyphs for the digit 7. Some have a cross-stroke, in which case the 7-like glyph of 1 that we're talking about would not be confused with the 7. And the number 7 doesn't have a line through it, because a number is an abstract quantity and doesn't have any form at all! What we're really talking about the digits being confused, with a specific glyph for 7 to remedy the problem. Also ambiguous of the word "whereas".

In some countries, the serif at the top is sometimes extended into a long upstroke, sometimes longer than the vertical line, which can lead to confusion with glyphs for 7 in other countries. In countries where the glyph for [or digit] 1 is written with a long upstroke, the glyph for [or digit] 7 has a horizontal stroke through the vertical line.

— kwami (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I have change the section heading, as I consider yours as a personal attack (see WP:Personal attacks. As you seem to consider important to use the correct wordings, you should also be careful in spelling my username. Please correct it.

Glyph: The shape of the symbol used for denoting the number one and the digit 1 is called a glyph. The use of character or symbol could be acceptable, but certainly not digit, as the digit 1 is the same but has a very different shape in various languages.

Numeral and digit: A numeral is a symbol (or a sequence of symbols), a word, or a phrase that is used for representing a number. A digit is a specific numeral used in the modern positional number system. Generally, a digit consists of a single symbol, but this is not always the case; for example, in 1,234, one may consider that 234 is a digit for the base 1000. So, 1 is a numeral that represents the number one; it is also a digit that is used for representing numbers greater than 9. Also, a numeral represents a number. It may be written, but certainly not represented as you suggest with your formulation.

The section that you have edited is a summary of another aricle, which is intended for a wide audience. So technical typographic details are not convenient here.

On the other hand, I agree that the use of "number" after "whereas" is incorrect. I have fixed this by replacing it by "digit" (twice).

In summary, except for the last point, your edit does not improve the article. Let us wait for seeing the opinion of other editors. D.Lazard (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I see three concepts here:

1. Number. 12 is a number. (1 is also a number, but that example is less helpful, as 1 is also a digit and a glyph.) It's an abstract quantity independent of any representation. In articles about integers, "number" is usually but not always a shorthand for "natural number".
2. Digit. Most systems represent the number 12 as two digits, the second of which is known variously as "2", "二" (Chinese 2), etc. (The digits in a number may vary: the Mayan system represents 12 by a single digit "𝋬" which only displays correctly if an uncommon font is installed.)
3. Glyph. 2 and 二 (Chinese 2) are different glyphs representing the same digit. (Other glyphs such as "A" and "&" which represent non-numbers.)

Let's pick a standard term for each of those three concepts and use them consistently. I don't feel strongly about which words should be chosen. In particular, I don't think "digit" is the best choice for concept 2, as that word is also used for concept 3. We might avoid numeral: the term might mean digit or glyph, and our page of that title is a dab. Certes (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)