Talk:53 (number)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Universal random number
Can anyone corroborate this universal random number crap?
Widely recognized in areas of California and Northern Israel as the Universal Random Number, thought to be a rare number that appears more often in random sequence than others.
A Google search for "universal random number" gives 400+ results. When you refine the search to exclude the word "generator," suddenly the results are narrowed down to just three, and two of them it's clear that they still contain the word "generator" but in a way that Google wasn't able to recognize. So what we're left with is [1]. Not very convincing, is it? Anton Mravcek 21:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Shall I have everyone who is a part of this come and comment here? As I said, leave contact information, and I can have people from all over contact you. We now have a Branch in Canada.
- Sure. You can comment here, you can go to my user page and click "E-mail this user." Whatever you want to do. Anton Mravcek 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Using the internet to build information on the internet strikes me as rather pointless.
- OKaaaay... But can you cite at least one book that I can find in any library or bookstore that confirms your assertion that 53 is so "widely recognized" as the "universal random number"??? Anton Mravcek 20:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how well you read english, but it's not my first language and I think this is pretty clear:
- Widely recognized in areas of California and Northern Israel as the Universal Random Number, thought to be a rare number that appears more often in random sequence than others.
Please read this completely, so you understand what it says. Now then, I've offered you a reliable way to verify it. You can either 1) provide contact information so I can have hundreds of people email you to confirm this is the case 2) give me permission to have them all come and post it here. You can in either case see their comments are coming from IPs in the areas I have mentioned.
Books will come later! For now, this information should stay in place.
- Please don't feed the trolls! The feeble joke is gone again. - DavidWBrooks 22:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Divisors
Seems funny to list divisors for a prime number, but I see that they exist in the table for other primes, so you're correct to return them for consistency's sake. - DavidWBrooks 11:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Divisors.--Niels Ø 14:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
