Talk:120 (number)

Their's got to be a maximum number of electrons an atom can possibly have. Element 129 I can buy, but at some point their's got to be a maximum. But even if their is an Element 129 out their to be discovered, wouldn't it be better to comment out those lines about atomic numbers until the element at least gets a temporary name? - PubLibGuy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.74.196.20 (talk) 19:04, 2003 December 23 (UTC)

The USian pronunciation is a clear minority, so I've moved this to have the "and". Perhaps people can tackle the other number articles. I am also concerned about the amount of stuff from the bible that's been put in -- what does it tell us about the number? --- Tarquin 23:28, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree on both points. Good move. FearÉIREANN 23:35, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Although I am an agnostic, I've noticed that alot of my fellow math enthusiasts are either extremely devout Christians or Jews. Any number that appears in the bible is extremely important to them, and its probably so for other christians and jews. -- Anonymous User — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.41.203 (talk) 19:50, 2004 January 7 (UTC)

It is a fair point. I have removed reference to the Holy Bible and left simply the bible, which is less POV. That may at least tone down some of the religious angle. FearÉIREANN 22:57, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We probably need a Wikipedia: page to discuss issues on all these pages centrally. -- Tarquin 23:04, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Moved back - see Talk:One hundred ten. Let's respect existent conventions and avoid move wars. --Jiang 06:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

At Talk:Supercentenarian, there is a table of names to use for women who live up to 200 years. However, the name for a 120-year-old-ian is easy to mis-interpret because of how the element "mega" is best interpreted. Other possibilites, both with dis-advantages, are:

• duo centenarian: properly means 102
• super super centenarian: wordy

Can anyone try to come up with an easy-to-accept name??

66.32.106.43 02:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

This is an issue that will become more important as time progresses, what with lengthening lifespans. I for one am stumped on even giving a suggestion. PrimeFan 19:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

120/25 = not zero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijah enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:30, 2004 July 11 (UTC)

Taken care of. 4pq1injbok 00:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've just added a note at 123 re the interesting number paradox; but this is really a spurious property, so I'm not quite sure it's a reasonable thing to say. Comments? 4pq1injbok 03:28, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I find 123 interesting. It's a concatenation of the first three positive integers, sometimes called a Smarandche consecutive number. Sometimes it's used in the expression "easy as 123" (instead of "1-2-3"). But these are all base-dependent. Here's a base-independent one: it is the tenth Lucas number. PrimeFan 21:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No offense, but 4pq1injbok is no Hardy, and PrimeFan is no Ramanujan. A few months ago I would've agreed with the goal stated at WikiProject Numbers, for every integer from 1 to 1024 to have its own article. But now I think there are a lot of numbers between 100 and 1000 that don't honestly deserve their own articles. 123 might be one of them, and its being the smallest integer without its own article hardly qualifies it as interesting. Anton Mravcek 21:18, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure. I'm certainly not arguing for an article for 123 on account of this alone; indeed it rather defeats the purpose. If we can find enough proper properties of 123, then by all means it deserves an article. Still, we're bound to have some least integer without an article, be it 123 or not. 4pq1injbok 04:35, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the past week, I've heard two separate references to the number 120 as a threshold size on communities.

In the first instance, it was mentioned by a friend as the maximum size that a community can work at and still be highly cohesive. He'd heard it from a friend of his who works in environmental science. It was suggested that feudal villages where only 120 people, and the person was suggesting that 120 people self-sufficient communities would be a good idea.

In the second instance, I was reading an article in New Scientist from 28 January 2006 ("How evolution found God") that suggested that religion may have developed as human groups expanded beyond 120 people:

Interestingly, this "social brain hypothesis" predicts that around the time our ancestors evolved the capacity for fifth-order intentionality their community sizes would have exceeded about 120 individuals. Religion may have evolved to provide the mechanism for bonding them into a coherent social unit.

I've not been able to track down any information on this, but my curiosity is piqued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.210.125 (talk) 21:45, 2006 February 6 (UTC)

I acquired a copy of this paper. It's not generally available on the internet, but i have it somewhere on my site.

The paragraph that follows this name, is a precise of the content of the paper. Wendy.krieger (talk) 10:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Twelfty. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 18:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)Reply