Talk:11 (number)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Technology

Is the F11-function key remark really necessary. One might as well add the F11 function of all 40+ programs installed on my PC. I don't think this is the right place to mention this.

Besides your Web browser and Microsoft Excel, I seriously doubt that the 40+ programs on your computer have any assignments for the F11 key, much less diverse assignments. But if they do have diverse assignments, can you notice any similarities? PrimeFan 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Division

213.37.6.106 (talk · contribs) has been making additions of factoids about this number in various bases, which I don't think belong here. He seems also to accidentally remove other factoids in the article. Any comments? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Divisibility

Is there a proof for the diviibility test? I understand, but would like a fuller explanation of it's origin if possible.Beligaronia 04:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tomatoes are delicious

One of the standard examples of patent nonsense is an article consisting of the phrase

Tomatoes are delicious! 11!

or something like that. Does anyone have any idea what the "11" means here, if anything? Is it leet, for example? --Trovatore 18:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

It looks suspiciously like leet, yes, in particular over-exclamation. If this was the case I wouldn't expect a space among the !s and 1s, though. 4pq1injbok 19:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks like the answer. I think the spaces weren't there in the original. --Trovatore 19:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This is old now, but it is because the author has accidentally? purposefully? taken their finger off the SHIFT key. I have seen people go to the extent of writing like this!!!11!eleven! ~~ THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR (((¶))) 10:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fool's number

I added that 11 is the 'fool's number'. Is this just a Dutch thing? If so, I should have added that. I am starting to wonder because I can't find anything about it googling in English. I haven't tried any other languages yet. DirkvdM (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers, PolarYukon (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC) drogba 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.68.108 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

More 11 events

1.11.11 - Australia Hit with Massive Flooding - parts of the country disappear under water 2.11.11 - Egypt's government falls: Mubarak steps down 3.11.11 - Japan quake, tsunami — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toavgc (talk • contribs) 06:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

These events have no logical connection with 11.

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ngcic.org/
  • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
  • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/LEsaros/LEsaros1-175.html
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:07:31, 404 Not Found
  • In 1520s BC on 2011-05-23 03:34:42, 404 Not Found
  • In 1630s BC on 2011-05-25 01:51:51, 404 Not Found
  • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:15, 404 Not Found
  • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:24, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Error detection

the number is also heavily used in errordetection f.e. ISBN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPFWfAxIiwg&feature=relmfu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.127.78 (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Multiplying by 11

I added the details, that explain in general why the multiplication by 11 works, due to the rewriting of the number using the base format, and not only by some quick numerical examples.

Multiplying numbers by 11 in base 10 in details

Given a number $A$ in base 10 with $n$ digits, we can represent it as follows:
$A=d_{n}\cdot 10^{n-1}+d_{n-1}\cdot 10^{n-2}+\ldots +d_{2}\cdot 10^{1}+d_{1}\cdot 10^{0}$.
When multiplied by $11$ we have
$A\cdot 11=(d_{n}\cdot 10^{n-1}+d_{n-1}\cdot 10^{n-2}+\ldots +d_{2}\cdot 10^{1}+d_{1}\cdot 10^{0})\cdot 11$
That we can write as
$A\cdot (10+1)=(d_{n}\cdot 10^{n-1}+d_{n-1}\cdot 10^{n-2}+\ldots +d_{2}\cdot 10^{1}+d_{1}\cdot 10^{0})\cdot (10+1)$
Therefore rewriting it as
$(d_{n}\cdot 10^{n-1}+d_{n-1}\cdot 10^{n-2}+\ldots +d_{2}\cdot 10^{1}+d_{1}\cdot 10^{0})\cdot 10+(d_{n}\cdot 10^{n-1}+d_{n-1}\cdot 10^{n-2}+\ldots +d_{2}\cdot 10^{1}+d_{1}\cdot 10^{0})\cdot 1$
grouping by the same power we get why the method exposed above works
$d_{n}\cdot 10^{n}+(d_{n}+d_{n-1})\cdot 10^{n-1}+(d_{n-1}+d_{n-2})\cdot 10^{n-2}+(d_{n-2}+d_{n-3})\cdot 10^{n-3}+\ldots +(d_{3}+d_{2})\cdot 10^{2}+(d_{2}+d_{1})\cdot 10^{1}+d_{1}\cdot 10^{0}$

An example could be $8745783\cdot 11$.
We can se it as:
$8\cdot 10^{6}+(7+4)\cdot 10^{5}+(4+5)\cdot 10^{4}+(5+7)\cdot 10^{3}+(7+8)\cdot 10^{2}+(8+3)\cdot 10^{1}+3\cdot 10^{0}=9203613$

But for some reason they where reverted as "not needed". Why are them not needed if they provide a more general information about the procedure? I would say that, when is possible, the theory should be followed by examples and not just examples without theories. Anyway i don't like too many reverts so i left the information here, if someone thinks that is worthy, could add it directly to the page. Pier4r (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It's too detailed, confusing, and not precisely correct. If someone else thinks it is at all appropriate, I'd like to see some justification related to Wikipedia policies and guidlines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

About too detailed, ok i can understand (but at least provides a generalized explanation and not just by examples like "do this and that and it should work." "yes but why?" "Who cares, it works"). Confusing, it seems a too vague objection. Could you please elaborate more? Not precisely correct: again, where are the errors? Furthermore it could be rewritten (we are on a wiki in the end). Sorry, as you would like to see justification related to existing policies, would be also nice to have concrete objections. By the way, i just checked the list of wikipedia policies, i don't find any policy against the content. If you find some, please mention them and let's discuss. I think that contributing with small pieces of text should not take too much effort, i prefer to leave them on a talk page where someone with more credits in the wikipedia community could decide. At the end the community of active editors always decide, as in whatever human community, others/outsiders can leave contributes there and there and wait. I guess that talk pages help in this direction. Pier4r (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs, supports, with reference to guidelines, why proofs should not be included unless important or informative. And, they must be sourced, in any case. One guideline mentioned is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is not really a "proof" as written in that policy. I mean, i can understand for long proofs, but the addition that i propose seems more an "example written in general way". And i tried to find sources on internet by my own before adding it, but i end up in articles that shows examples on how it works without generalizing. In one of them a commenter even says "Actually I haven't encountered anyhing that defies that law, (cough) ..trick." ( http://math.wonderhowto.com/how-to/multiply-any-number-by-11-with-super-fast-mental-trick-0133417/ ) . Without generalized example the article (concerning the multiplication part), for me, seems on the same level. Pier4r (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is a proof (with some steps omitted, but, still....) Whether it is a "proof" as written in the guideline is an open question. And I don't see any use for that derivation except in an elementary textbook. But I've been known to miss things, due to being too familiar of mathematics jargon. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Umm, ok. I'm happy enough to leave it here in the case the community will decide to use it. Settled. (Anyway i would like to see a textbook with those explanations, i guess is not easy to find). Pier4r (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

what is the derivation of the word eleven...how come eleven and twelve don't fit the teen convetion shared by 13-19? Kingturtle 23:50, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eleven

Word History: The decimal system of counting is well established in the English names for numbers. Both the suffix -teen (as in fourteen) and the suffix -ty (as in forty) are related to the word ten. But what about the anomalous eleven and twelve? Why do we not say oneteen, twoteen along the same pattern as thirteen, fourteen, fifteen? Eleven in Old English is endleofan, and related forms in the various Germanic languages point back to an original Germanic *ainlif, ?eleven.? *Ainlif is composed of *ain-, ?one,? the same as our one, and the suffix *-lif from the Germanic root *lib-, ?to adhere, remain, remain left over.? Thus, eleven is literally ?one-left? (over, that is, past ten), and twelve is ?two-left? (over past ten). Evil saltine 23:53, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Could this not be put into the article? doktorb _words^deeds 10:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com and the Online Etymology Dictionary are only quasi-reliable sources. Actual reliable sources like the real OED note

-lif- of uncertain origin.

The lead answer at Reddit's ELI5 on this topic cribbed our misinformation so we really should stop spreading it. — LlywelynII 12:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Relation to 9/11 attack

An anonymous user added the following to the article. Rather than simply deleting it, I decided to integrate it into the article. PrimeFan 20:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

1) New York City has 11 letters

2) Afghanistan has 11 letters. 3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters. 4) George W Bush has 11 letters. 1) New York is the 11th state. 2)The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flightnumber11. 3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11 4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65passengers.6+5 = 11 5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known.9 +1+ 1 =11 6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephonenumber911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11. 1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planeswas254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11. 2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2+ 5+ 4= 11. 3) The >>>Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 =11.

4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the TwinTowersincident.

Well, that was a mistake. Numerology is a pseudoscience and a section on this would violate UNDUE and FRINGE. It might theoretically be relevant to the 9/11 article, but again it's a pseudoscience and not really within the SCOPE of our articles. It could be used as an example of numerology in action at the Numerology article... but you wouldn't need all 4+6+4(-3 because it's three groups...=11!!) examples. — LlywelynII 12:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

x) That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran. but that statement is false.

Well then really don't include it. — LlywelynII 12:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Counting on human fingers

"Eleven is the first number which cannot be counted with a human's eight fingers and two thumbs additively."

This is just wrong. In some societies (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_counting) people count from one using no fingers up to twelve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.19.247 (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It could be more aptly stated, but it isn't wrong and "see finger counting for people using no fingers" doesn't make any sense whatsoever. People certainly do count in base 12 using their thumbs to follow the three joints of each of the four fingers on a hand and it's certainly possible to count to 24, 28, or 30 using the same system (adding the other hand and the thumbs) or 19, 21, 42, 45, etc. using the empty spaces between the fingers... but that's mostly gibberish. When people count on their fingers, base 10 is the default. — LlywelynII 12:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:11 (number)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Is this article a joke ?

Last edited at 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 19:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 11 (number). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404095400/https://www.threeimaginarygirls.com/features/2009jul/imaginaryinterviewjasonwebley to http://www.threeimaginarygirls.com/features/2009jul/imaginaryinterviewjasonwebley

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)