Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65535 (number)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 65535 (number)

non-notable number; see WP:NUMBER; two weak claims are not enough: It's a Fermat number, not a Fermat prime, and there are infinitely many of those. The fact that it's the highest unsigned 2-bit int is already in 10000 (number).Septentrionalis 19:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a Mersenne number, you meant to say. It's a product of Fermat primes.Rich 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I think the first claim about the max points in a game is weak. However, the TCP ports is interesting, I think it has some merit. Plus, somebody put some work into the article. I think it should stay. Chris Kreider 19:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It one of numbers software developers should recognize immediatelly but that's about it. Any ordinal value limited to 2 Bytes will have 65536 possible values and using one such value as a reserved is quite common trick. TCP/UDP/IPX/zillion other protocols and APIs/game points are not unique in using 2 B sized data with 64k limit. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 29 October 2006

If it's a common trick then isn't it a piece of lore a software rookie would be glad to learn?Rich 20:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Last I checked, we werent all software developers. Perhaps something we may take for granted, somebody else may find fascinating, or need information on. Chris Kreider 23:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, despite the seeming narrowness of the examples, this is an important value in computer science in general. Also, if you see a factual error, be bold and edit away! Seraphimblade 19:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep being the highest 16-bit unsigned int has a lot of significance for older computing systems. As such, two claims is just the tip of things related to this number. Also, notability is a guideline, not policy. Mitaphane _talk 20:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep its importance in computing is notable enough. --Salix alba (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mitaphane. Danny Lilithborne 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, I have very recently made edits to try to make 65535 seem more interesting and notable. Part of my reason for Keep is pedagogical-65536 is a concrete number so that a person who hates x's and y's etc can see interesting things without forcefeeding. For ex, I said 3x5x17x257=65535 is 2 less than the next Fermat prime, hoping the reader'll notice that 3 is 2 less than 5(second fermat prime),3x5 is 2 less thn 17(third Fermat prime),3x5x17 is 2 less than 257, and so on.Rich 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Highly notable Mersenne number. --- RockMFR 23:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Mitaphane.--WaltCip 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Mitaphine. shoy 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Its 2^x - 1.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (even though I edited for formatting, which I hope clearly improves the article) and redirect to 10000 (number). Appears to fail the standards in WP:NUMBER and
  1. Wikipedia:NOT infinite. Not all 2^x - 1 deserve their own article.
  2. The 3x5x17x257 comment should be in Mersenne number or Fermat number, rather than under a specific number.
  3. The computer science (and gaming) referents should be in a computer science article. In fact, the line 65535 in 10000 (number) reads largest value for an unsigned 16-bit integer on a computer, which could be expanded by a word or two to cover the issue completely.

  So, delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment You do make a strong case. However, from my experience teaching GE courses, I've found that concrete numbers have an important role in learning for nonmathies esp., and that would be at least in part taken away by your recommendation.Rich 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (original author - created on request) - Seemed notable enough in the first place, when I found it on the requested articles pages. Guinness 09:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, merge afterwards if necessary - uh... why should number 65535 be discussed in the article about number 10000? 65535 is pretty interesting from computer science pov, so keeping it is reasonable. If merging is absolutely necessary, it should be at least left as a redirect. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you look at 10000 you'll see it has a list of significant 5-digit numbers at the bottom of it. However, in this case, I believe 65535 has more content than can be well handled on a merger. FrozenPurpleCube 15:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per WP:1729, it's not that interesting that 65535 is a Mersenne number. Anton Mravcek 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. On the contrary, 65535 is used in many more instances than 1729, such as in programming (65535 is naturally the highest integer that can be used in Visual Basic before an overflow occurs). Plus, WP:1729 is not a Wikipedia policy, but rather, an essay.
    • Comment. You misunderstood. 1729 is just the shortcut to that essay, which is not a policy but a very useful rule of thumb. If you run "65535 is a Mersenne number" through the questionaire in the essay, you should come up with negative points, meaning that it's not interesting that "65535 is a Mersenne number." If you can find three mathematical properties of 65535 that yield positive points in the WP:1729 questionaire, you might be able to get the members of the WP:NUM project to vote keep in this AfD. Anton Mravcek 18:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Please do keep in mind that, WP:1729 aside, a number may be interesting outside of the context of pure number theory. While numbers interesting to other fields (such as computer science and programming, in this case) are not covered there, that doesn't mean they don't count! Seraphimblade 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
        • CommentI think the 1729 article has interesting ideas but it is not yet a useful rule of thumb. For ex, too much trouble justifying a second odd perfect number, which should be close to automatic keep.Rich 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I disagree with Anton about the mathematical interest of 65535. I suggest he try the WP:1729 questionaire with the statement "65535 is a composite Mersenne number." But I think that those voting strong keep need to look harder for interesting properties of this number. CompositeFan 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has computing notability. Carlossuarez46 04:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, for the same reason as Carlossuarez46 Armanalp 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above, has computing notability and frankly can't see any valid reason to delete this. Yamaguchi先生 07:25, 1 November 2006
• Comment While this article poses some importance, there are some out there which - in my opinion violate WP:1729. Check out, for instance, the year 10,000 problem, where the sources of this article are based solely on April 1st jokes.--WaltCip 14:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; it's not just any 2^x-1, it is 2^16-1, and since 2^32-1 is too big to remember, it's the only large number of that form that's really memorable because of it.--Prosfilaes 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean you don't remember 4,294,967,295?  :) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep has sufficient computing notability. --Trödel 15:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It's computing interest seems to be just an accident of the 16-bit word size. Numerao 19:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Y2K bug was an accident of computation, and yet there's an article on that.--WaltCip 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per the WP:1729 questionaire, it is interesting that 65535 is of the form 2^2^n - 1, with positive +102352 points. The constructible polygon item would most likely score higher. Plus just one of the interesting computing properties and we have three interesting properties as per WP:NUM. PrimeFan 23:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, the first two "properties" here are almost identical. Septentrionalis 00:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Used commonly in computing throughout history. I'm actually a bit surprised something like this is up for deletion. --Czj 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The WP:1729 questionnaire applied to 65535

Number N = 65535 is a number of the form .

1. How many n < 10⁷ do NOT have this property in common with Number N? If it's too computationally intensive to calculate, a heuristic estimate is acceptable, or even a rough guesstimate. These are the starting points.

9999996 points.

2. Has a professional mathematician written a peer-reviewed paper or book about this property that specifically mentions Number N?

No. Deduct 10⁷ points.

No, at least none that I can find. -4 points.

3. In a list sorted in ascending order, at what position k does Number N occur? Deduct k from Question 2 points.

65535 occurs at position 4. -8 points.

4. Might f(N) = False in a different base b?

NO. Skip ahead to Question 5.

5. Does the sequence of numbers with f(N) = True in Sloane's OEIS specifically list Number N in its Sequence or Signed field?

YES. Award the A-number of the sequence as points.

Yes, it's (sequence A051179 in OEIS). 51171 points.

6. What keywords does the sequence have in its Keywords field?

core. Subtract the sequence's A-number from the A-number of the most recently added sequence. Award that difference as points.

nice. Award the A-number of the sequence as points.

hard. Award the A-number of the sequence as points again.

more. Award the A-number of the sequence as points again.

base. Make sure you did not skip Question 4.

less. Deduct the sequence's A-number as points.

Any others. Award a point each.

nonn, easy and nice. 102352 points.

7. How many points are there?

points > 0. The property in relation to the number is interesting.

points = 0. It's your call.

points < 0. The property in relation to the number is NOT interesting.

Positive 102352, the property in relation to the number is interesting.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.