Talk:Interesting and uninteresting numbers

Also need to add a link to Church-Turing Thesis here. Anthony DiPierro 18:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why does this page keep being redirected to 1729 (number)? It seems ridiculous to suggest that 1729 is the only interesting or uninteresting number. Either the page should be deleted completely or kept as it is. The redirect is non-sensical. Angela. 23:31, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

The concept is explained in the 1729 article. The link does not imply that 1729 is the only (un)interesting number. --Wik 23:33, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

This merits being an article in its own right, with links to articles on individual interesting and uninteresting numbers. Please call off your revert war with Anthony di Pierro so that those working on WikiProject Numbers can work unfettered by page protections on revert war zones. Both of you have important, interesting things to add to Wikipedia articles and I don't wish to side with either of you. 141.217.41.219 19:54, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, so far there is no such article. You can make additions to the 1729 (number) article; when there is enough substance dealing with the general concept of interesting and uninteresting numbers, I will not oppose moving it out to a separate article. But the present short paragraph isn't worth it. --Wik 20:03, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

This should be its own article. In particular, redirecting to 1729 (which does not currently have info on the subject) will keep such an article from appearing, by confusing people. The latest two paragraphs seem a more than acceptable stub... +sj+ 23:19, 2004 Mar 13 (UTC)

Rationale for revert

I reverted this article but I don't wish to take sides with either User:Anthony di Pierro nor User:Wik. I realize that this version is a lot like the article Wik redirected it to, but I wish that yet another third-party uncommitted to either Anthony or Wik will take on the task of editing these two articles. PrimeFan 18:20, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

how's that? looking at the two articles, I think "Interesting number paradox" is the better title and the more concisely worded article. If you could suggest how you think this might be further edited, that would help... +sj+ 18:38, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Liouville's number

I added a paragraph that asserts that Liouville's number is uninteresting. I'm honestly not sure of the value of this paragraph, because although I think there's an interesting point buried in there somewhere, the phrasing might be too tongue-in-cheek for anyone to get it out. Nevertheless I think there may be some value in mentioning it. -- Dominus 08:46, 8 May 2004 (UTC)