Talk:2 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers.
Numbers rating:	Start Class	Top Importance
Comments: The section entitled In mathematics appears to consist of a haphazard collection of properties, many of which are not notable. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is part of WikiProject Numbers, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use resource about numbers. Suggestions for improving multiple articles on numbers and related subjects should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers.

Mathematics Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.

Mathematics rating:

Start Class

Mid Priority

Field: Basics

One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.

Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments.
Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article.
The section entitled In mathematics appears to consist of a haphazard collection of properties, many of which are not notable. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1 Arabic Glyph
2 Couple
3 $2 bill
4 Fancy picture
5 Numerical prefixes for 2
6 In astronomy
7 Redirected from 'too'
8 Redirected from '1 + 1'
9 Merge with square root of 4
10 Citation Needed?

[edit] Arabic Glyph

isn't the origin of the arabic numbers related to the quantity of acute/right angles they have? 1 being the two sticks (without the bottom one), two was like a Z, 3 like an inverted E, and so on...? so this section of the article would seem a little bit dubious. Does this happen in other number articles? please revise. 159.90.161.23 19:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but very wrong. I'm counting four right (90 degree) angles in the inverted E.

Take a look at the Unicode code chart for Arabic. While you're at it, look for the book From one to zero: a universal history of numbers by Georges Ifrah, translated by Lowell Bair, New York : Viking, 1985. Anton Mravcek 21:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Couple

I think it's incorrect to redirect "Couple" to "Two". I was looking for the husband-wife usage here and didn't find it. Also "Two" is the wrong page to add the info. I guess Couple is more than a dictionary meaning, so it can have a page of its own. Jay 23:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks User:Icairns for removing the redirect and creating a disambiguation page. Jay 14:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] $2 bill

I removed the statement that "$2 bill "never gained widespread acceptance." It's nonsense. Such bills were in common circulation in the 1950s and 1960s, and cashiers customarily devoted a compartment of their cash register to them. They were less common than the $1, $5, and $10 bills, but by no means rare. And if memory serves, they were commoner at the time than, say, the silver dollar or the even the fifty-cent-piece, and far, far, far commoner than, say, either the Susan B. Anthony or gold-toned Sacagawea coins ever were. There was said to be a superstition that $2 bills were bad luck, but it was not a common superstition and neither I nor anyone I encountered had such a superstition. Dpbsmith 02:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC) P. S. It is, of course, very rare today since it was a form of U. S. currency known as the "United States Note" (red Treasury seal) which was vanishing even then and was discontinued circa 1966.

[edit] Fancy picture

At 3 (telecommunications), there is a fancy picture of a 3. At Channel 4, there is a fancy picture of a 4. Do any Wikipedia articles mention a fancy picture of a 2?? Georgia guy 23:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numerical prefixes for 2

Like the other numbers, 2 has a Greek numerical prefix and a Latin numerical prefix. Unlike the other numbers, however, there is also a prefix for 2, twi-, that is neither Greek nor Latin. What language is it?? Georgia guy 23:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure it's a prefix - I would guess that "twice" and "twin" are just derived from "two", which itself comes from "duo". It's not like sticking "twi-" on the front of any other word would make sense. sjorford 15:01, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My dictionary (Webster's NewWorld, college edition) says "twi-" is a prefix from Middle English via Old English. There are plenty of other twi- words; see my additions to twi-. dbenbenn | talk 16:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected...but twitch? twig? Do those really derive from "twi-" meaning "two"? Bizarre if so. sjorford 16:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good questions, now answered at twi-. dbenbenn | talk 20:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And damn good answers, if I do say so my damn self. sjorford 21:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In astronomy

Messier object M2, a magnitude 6.5 globular cluster in the constellation Aquarius.

The New General Catalogue object NGC 2, a magnitude 14.2 spiral galaxy in the constellation Pegasus

The Saros number of the solar eclipse series which began on May 4, 2861 BC and ended on June 21, 1563 BC . The duration of Saros series 2 was 1298.1 years, and it contained 73 solar eclipses.

The Saros number of the lunar eclipse series which began on February 21, 2541 BC and ended on April 22, 1225 BC. The duration of Saros series 2 was 1316.2 years, and it contained 74 lunar eclipses.

These are all arbitrary number assignments. Nothing fundamental, like magic numbers and the like. -- Zanaq 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that many pages on numbers, not only 2, have such astronomical data, and that the matter has already been discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers (see for instance Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers/Archive_1#Astronomical numbers). Note also that arbitrariness is not in itself a reason to exclude this information -- a lot of the stuff in sports, technology, etc. is just as arbitrary. So I've put the astronomical stuff back for consistency with the rest of the numbers, but you're welcome to bring this up at WikiProject Numbers. 4pq1injbok 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I brought it up. -- Zanaq 11:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirected from 'too'

I was redirected to this page from the search term 'too'. Shouldn't this redirect be revised, considering the meaning of 'too' is completely different to 'two'?

[edit] Redirected from '1 + 1'

I think 1 + 1 should have an independent account, given that 1 + 1 is a fundamental component of mathematics, logic, language and popular culture, with connotations that go far beyond the simple fact that it '= 2'. To automatically redirect to 2 is somewhat of an oversight. Thefuguestate 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should exist as an article. However, it shouldn't exist as a redirect to this article as Wikipedia is not a calculator. Astroguy2 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

True; and that's why I fixed the redirect from the square root of 4 to here, too. Dicklyon 06:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with square root of 4

Please discuss this in the Talk:Square root of 4 since the latter has been nominated for deletion. I think there is some interesting material in the latter page (Computer Science stuff, about the error which, if from real reliable sources, might merit mentioning) that can be added here. Furthermore, the additional material will enrich this page. Finally, mathematical views can also be discussed. Brusegadi 06:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also worth pointing out that many edits have been made by a user to prove a point. I suggest neglecting that part of the page. Brusegadi 06:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The "computer science" bit was actually a bit of a joke, since the point of the article is unrelated to the particular value that he used as his title example. Just shows that not everything that mentions a number is a reliable source. Dicklyon 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing that computers 'do not think so' made a little sense to me. I thought it would be one of those articles with strange titles. I thought you had access to the link so I took it seriously; I did not go over it because I thought it would be a waste of time; I wanted to wait and see what others had to say. To be honest the whole 2.00000... irritated me (I am a bit tired and using this to procrastinate on long ago due work). It was a good wiki day thought. I never knew that so much stuff could be done to prove a point. ;) Brusegadi 08:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article you mention was real and serious, but not really relevant to the square root of 4 (it's been a long time since there were computers that would get square roots of square integers wrong). If you want to look for any bits worth salvaging, or just want to enjoy the parody on the square root of 5, find it at User:dicklyon/Square_root_of_4. Dicklyon 15:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Needed?

From the article: "2 (two) is a number, numeral, and glyph. It is the natural number following 1 and preceding 3.[citation needed]" I just want to say how glad I am to see the citation needed thingy at the end of this sentence. I just don't feel comfortable believing this information until I know it comes from a credible source. I mean, anyone could have posted this, and I don't know if they have a degree in math, are merely numbers enthusiasts, or are 5 years old. Thanks wikipediers. --Banyan 02:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it gives me a good idea about other articles where more citations may be needed... Dicklyon 02:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm in teh wrong hands is just plain stupid. Numerao (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)