Talk:69,105

Comma

It's not the usual practice to include a comma in titles of number articles. I'm curious why it's been included here. 4pq1injbok 16:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've moved it to fit in with the pattern of all the other number articles, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to have the redirect with the comma. I've also added a Docuan table and a mathematics section, but admittedly I had nothing interesting to say in it. PrimeFan 21:48, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment

Trying to find things to say bout this number: its not a self number since its digit addition generator is 69081 + (6 + 9 + 0 + 8 + 1). 141.217.173.161 22:44, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

69

Conceivably, any number containing 69 would be related to the position connotated by that number. Is it necessary, then, to include the comment about it? Or was it actually mentioned in the "Passages" book?

I'll take it out until we know. FuzzyOnion 20:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was actually mentioned in the Passages book as an influence on the number. Marnanel 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG

I do not see how an article about an recurring element from video games, with little or no content unrelated to video games, is not within the scope of WP:VG. Even were the article to contain much unrelated content, if a reasonable amount were about VGs then it would be in the scope. The template does not mean "this article is about a video game". It means this article is "video game-related". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of double negatives there. Possible even moreso. You can tell this is an argument about a number. 94.197.120.213 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sginificance

1001, 2002, etc have the interesting property (well, the ones I've checked) where 6,006 hex is 60,006 oct. But that's different from 69,105's property. Actually 69,105 itself I'm struggling to see the significance of. Yep it's a number formed by sticking the forms of a number, in 2 different bases, one after the other. What's actually special about that? It's not so much a number, as a list of two numbers. Completely obvious ones. If you could pick your own bases, surely there's an infinite amount of numbers you could make up in this way.

Apart from Infocom choosing it, it seems less interesting than most other numbers. There are thousands of numbers that have some mildly interesting little quirk about them.

Is it fair to say that this number has no significance at all, outside Infocom? And that Infocom chose it completely randomly? Except they possibly wanted to sneak a smutty reference in, programmers were such nerds back then. In the good ol' days.

94.197.120.213 (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)