Talk:99 (number)

Admin revert undone

Sorry, sir, but I have only (limited) library time because of issues you cannot fully perceive. If you would put any discussion addressing the issues with this article here, that is my preference, but we have two other natural obvious choices and others. Your call.Julzes (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also edited a tiny bit to 12 (number) and 21 (number), the former merely referring to the latter. I will look back here tomorrow and respond or continue coming back.Julzes (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no credible reason for including your addition. This is not an admin action, merely removing extreme trivia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That appears overly assertive. So, will undo. Other opinions, please.Julzes (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if you can come up with a reason for inclusion, per WP:BRD, it should remain out until consensus for inclusion is established. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish to comment. Another admin and I have been brought into heightened conflict by this decision on your part in my opinion, this being somebody who has been of great assistance to me (but with whom a conflict was already brewing, apparently). I don't know. So sue me. I think you have a more personal issue, Professor. I will post here a best 3-hour editing effort tomorrow, if possible. But I am already in dubious territory time-wise on various fronts.Julzes (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits have been dubious for some time. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Please look at WP:WikiProject Numbers to see the guidelines on what should be included in number articles. The last 21 digits of 99⁹⁹ having a lot of "9"s seems not to be the requirements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, it will be your choice to make me postpone editing work (if you do), but I am in process of putting an attempt at publishable, though brief, work here tomorrow. Postscript (I might have mentioned, but had to be reminded of):: I spoiled 2 ballots today: 98th and 99th, and submitted 102nd. I have witnesses.Julzes (talk) 03:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

In process involved a denied request here as well. This suits me. The problem is beneath me mathematically and the fight is relatively minor. Unless I have credible evidence you are of low prognosis for your health, Dr. Rubin, I am done. I expect somebody else will automatically pick this up, and I have a back-up to that anyway. Dubious? Okay, but I prefer the way another class of people thinks apparently, and correcting others limits my capacity to correct myself (in terms of my time). As a last resort on this, I will eventually send it to you in Korean, but I am not even going to work on it today. If you want to send me enough for 4 consults, medical and other, then you know where to get my email address.Julzes (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to submit it to ko.wikipedia, you're welcome to. Their standards may be different than ours. But, even if the result is published, it still would be trivial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an alliance issue? Trivial is not a word to be cast around lightly by mathematicians. I agree in principle that as mathematics establishing notability would be trivial, so I will give 3 things a student might choose to include in an article attempting to put some kind of probability-like measure on surprisingness, and--if you like--you can give two or more objections to the whole idea. On the 11th day of Ridvan in the Asia/Pacific region (I just like 11 because of a test I once took). I will try to.Julzes (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC) I will just have to study Korean and do it at a deeper level yet because of that remark (of mine), and because I have to anyway when I really can.

Assuming I can concentrate on it, I will work on a sketch of what would go in an article for a couple of hours here at this library I am at tonight so that I am able to post it carefully written (a sketch for somebody else) tomorrow. That was the plan. By noon tomorrow my time.Julzes (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have concluded this topic can wait and should be redirected, essentially, from 9 (number) after a paper has been written dealing with (at least) this matter plus something on 19¹⁹ and 96⁹⁶. It is numerology-mathematics confusing, yes. Even as a simple problem, mathematically, it is far from simple by itself, and I have not had time, with my natural distractions, to even consolidate simple ideas for a simple note or research article.Julzes (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)