Talk:69 (number)

Interesting?

"Also interesting is that 6932 = 6969..." Who says it's interesting? I'm changing to "Something to note is that..." btg2290 20:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, it currently reads 69³² = 6969, but I don't see how that's the case. Can anyone care to explain before it gets removed? McKay 05:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, It's 69³² ~ 6.969*10⁵⁸. Hmm, can we make this any more clear? How about ~ 6969*10⁵⁵ McKay 06:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How is this interesting? For any n not a power of ten, and any finite sequence of digits, there exists m such that n^m starts with that sequence. I don't see the point of noting particular instances of this, and am removing it. Algebraist 22:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

On a similar note, what's the line about "Internet Phenomenon (Dwangster Pimp 69)" supposed to mean? Sounds like a vanity "fact". Edit: Upon further review, it was added anonymously on 1/29/07. Given that it was anonymous, unsourced, and makes no sense, it's gone. Akbeancounter 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

yin yang symbol

shouldn't it be put that it looks a lot like the yin yang symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.74.44 (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned the Ying Yang symbol looks like two whales 69ing... 24.129.235.74 (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

yeesh... and since there are probably only about 69 whales left alive in the world, it all comes full circle. can we do something productive now, please? Template:=) --Ludwigs2 04:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference to the sex position removed.

I added this to Fields:

In the field of sexology the number is the name of a sexual position due to the participants being mutually inverted like the digits of 6 and 9 in the number 69.

But it was reverted, with no explanation as to why. It is not vandalism, and there is a solid connection between the two subjects. If that connection is taboo on this page it really ought to say so here on the talk page, which I checked before adding it.--Pittsburghmuggle (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's referred to in 69 (disambiguation). One might make a point that it's more notable than most, there, but perhaps that article should be moved here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bingo names -

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#List of British bingo nicknames for a centralized discusion as to whether Bingo names should be included in thiese articles. Arthur Rubin (alternate) (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Replace 'Number' with 'Natural Number'

The word 'number' in the first paragraph should be replaced with 'natural number'. So it will be consistent with the other numbers article, and it goes up in classification and conform to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Opening_paragraph Paijo17TALK 09:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2020

In the first paragraph, change "a number" to "the natural number" to be consistent with the other articles about numbers. QoopyQoopy (talk) 16:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I discovered it done despite this not being marked answered. QoopyQoopy (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Meme culture

People refer to this number as being “nice” Pogeons (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Tone? Plagarism?

In the article it says "the highest factorial that can be calculated, due to memory limitations, is 69!" I feel like the exclamation point should be removed, as it adds nothing to the actual article and adds an unbiased tone? Like it sounds like a fun fact, pulled from a childrens book. That makes me think this line may have been copy pasted from somewhere else. 2600:1014:B04F:7AD2:EC4C:C9BD:E12B:F7F3 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It says in contect "...the highest factorial that can be calculated, due to memory limitations, is 69! or about 1.711224524×10⁹⁸." The ! character is notation for factorial and does not complete the sentence; "69!" means "sixty nine factorial", just like "5!" means "five factorial". The ! character in 69! does not convey any tone, fun or otherwise. 66.102.95.134 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• context 66.102.95.134 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Article for Lucky number contradicts with 69 (number). Lucky number suggests that 69 is not considered a lucky number, rather 67 is, while 69 (number) suggests that 69 is a lucky number. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2022

Change "69 is the only number whose square (4761) and cube (328509) use every decimal digit from 0–9 exactly once." to "69 is the only whole number whose square (4761) and cube (328509) use every decimal digit from 0–9 exactly once." 132.183.4.6 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Yes check.svg Done Thanks IP. Ovinus (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

this should be changed to "69 is the only positive whole number..." as -69 also applies. 23.112.172.229 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, changed to natural number. Ovinus (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Even or odd?

It says that 69 "can be divided evenly by 2". 69 divided by 2 is a fraction, so what did it mean to say? Art LaPella (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No answer, so I removed the phrase. 69 is odd. Art LaPella (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That looks good – thanks for contributing! ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 20:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

69 sexual position

There seem to be two instances of this theme . . . shouldn't the first mention of it just be moved down to "In other fields"? Pentaclebreaker (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In all honesty the sexual position is probably why most readers come by this article, not because they want to know whether or not 69 is a congruent number, so I think it is worth mentioning in the lead. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at 20:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

See also - 420?

Given that the humorous connotations of 69 are included here, and 420 has similar ones (as the weed number, in a very similar way to 69 being the sex number), should the see also section include a link to 420? Jerdle (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No. "Humorous connotations" does not mean these article subjects have any actual relation that would indicate that a full encyclopedia article would include mention of the other. – notwally (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added 420 to the see also section. Most sources about the phenomenon of street sign theft of "69 mile" markers also mention "420 mile" signs. This is after moving all mentions of the "69 mile" signs from 420 (cannabis culture)#Stolen signs (where it was off-topic) to 69 (number)#In culture. Compare the additional examples in Street sign theft#United States. Renerpho (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)