Talk:3 (number)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "third smallest prime number" seems to imply that 1 is prime. By convention, the lowest prime is generally considered to be 2, making 3 the second prime number.
- Not just consistency - by mathematical definition, one is not prime since it has only one divisor as opposed to two. Radiant_* 08:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
-
- One may easily define primes in such a way that 1 is included (e.g. defining prime as incomposite). Many elementary math teachers are unsure which definition is the right one (including or excluding 1). Some ancient Greeks apparently considered neither 1 nor 2 to be primes. So, yes, it's a matter of convention, and yes, the convention today is that 1 is not a prime - however, neither is it composite.--Niels Ø 09:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Are 3 (band) and Three (band) different entities? AxelBoldt 01:59, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- 3 (band) is from 3 and there it didn't say more about it ;-)
- According to [1], just 3 (band is probably sufficient.¨
- --User:Docu
Contents |
[edit] Stuff for Wiktionary
I think most of the content under the headers Groups of Three and In Chemistry ought to be moved to Wiktionary, since it's merely a list of words beginning "tri-" and the like. PrimeFan 22:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If they get too large, we could split them off, similar to List of famous pairs. I'm sure Wiktionary might want a copy too. -- User:Docu
[edit] Prefixes for 3
I suggest something must be modified about prefixes for 3. See Talk:Tri- for details. 66.245.127.59 22:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Requested move
3 → AD 3 and 3 (number) → 3 – {This actually sounds more natural with numbers under 100; does anyone ever say "This happened in 3"?? Georgia guy 13:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- On grounds of consistency, oppose the move. It has been generally established that ### refers to a year, and ### (number) refers to a number. Radiant_* 08:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose this would be contrary to a well-established convention and make this year inconsistant with all others. Jonathunder 18:36, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
- Oppose. - Jshadias 13:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. There are far more links to the number than the year. Fredrik | talk 16:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a big change that affects anyone editing articles on the first decade of the common era. It should be discussed and agreed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) first.
- Qualified support - It's true that there are far more links to each digit than to the respective years. I agree that this should be discussed at the MoS first. I don't think we should make one or the other the bare page; and certainly don't think we need to tackle the "3 AD" vs. "AD 3" vs. "AD is a criminal imposition of Christianity on my religion-neutral reading experience!" . Instead, I propose
- a) 3 (year) as the page for the year content, matching other disambiguation titles (since this *is* about disambiguation)
- b) having 3 redirect to 3 (year), for the sake of supporting auto-year-formatting
- c) making the links to the number (and the dab page, if there is a separate one) clear ata the top of the year article.
-
-
- see my proposal on the style guide talk page. +sj +
-
[edit] Discussion of suggested move
All the other digits are in the format "n (number)":
change all (which would be a VERY BIG project) or none.
- Certainly it would mean changing them all. It's not such a big project; and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers team is fairly active. +sj + 20:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
BTW are you familiar that using a "|" within a link eg [[3 (number)|]] it comes out as 3 not as 3 (number)? -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's all or none, so in the following, "3" could be replaced by any of the numbers 1-99. For consistency, I think it is reasonable to leave the number articles where they are (i.e. 3 (number)), but I agree that one rarely would refer to year 3 simply as "3" (where as year 2005 naturally could be referred to as "2005"). I think it would make sense either to move the year articles to 3 (year), making the article named just 3 a disambiguation page, or (probably a better idea:) to have a standardized text highlighted on top of all these pages, something like
- This article is about the year 3 AD - for other uses of the number 3, see 3 (number).
I have checked some of the pages in question (i.e. 1-99), and they already have a reference to 3 (number) (or equivalently), but it would be neater if the text also clarified what the 3 article itself is about. --Niels Ø 07:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Decision
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Not a chance that we should move one and not the rest - therefore this is the incorrect place to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The right place to discuss this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Rename articles in first decade of the common era?. Gdr 14:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
[edit] disambiguation
a lot of the information under "in other fields" should be moved to 3(disambiguation) page. some already has,such as three stooges.This information does not belong in a page refering to the number 3 in itself.
[edit] This is odd
Surely there should be some mention that 3 is odd. Or the first odd prime. Or Something.
I think there should be some mention of how... there's this natural tendency to make the number of something three. Whenever you're making a point, it sounds best to make three of them.. and other instances like that... and 'counting to three' and such.
- Yes, entirely. To some degree this is a systemic cultural preference: three is favoured in most European cultures, for instance, whereas some Native American traditions (e.g. the Lakota?) prefer four and use it in many contexts analogous to our three (IIRC). I'm not quite sure what to say about this, though. I'll add something on counting to three. 4pq1injbok 05:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Three Primary Colors
[edit] Three Graces
[edit] Past Present and Future
Three divisions of time
[edit] Pi
Should there be some mention of the false proofs (or wrong assumption) that 3 is Pi? Well, the ratio of a sircumference to diameter.
[edit] three
Just remember: "stoppest thou not at two, and if thou should count onward to three, proceedeth thou not onward to four." Monty python's rules for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. --DanielCD 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] fairy tales
three good fairies, three wishes, three days to guess rumpelstiltskins name, three bears, three blind mice, etc...
