Talk:11 (number)

Divisibility Test

I think that the base 10 divisibility test for 11 is worth mentioning here, so I added it, but I wonder if my explanation of it is simple and easy to understand. If anyone here can explain it better, I encourage them to edit the divisibility paragraph. PrimeFan 21:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Count by tens or count by twelves

Why do we have 1 left (eleven) and 2 left (twelve) instead ainteen and twateen? Consider the number of inches in a foot (12) and the number of items that compose a unit for shopkeepers (a dozen = 12 or a half dozen = 6) the number of items in a gross (12 * 12) and finally the fact that early on there was an eleventy (11 * 10) and a twelfty (12 * 10) in the language--tho that disappeared early. The number 12 was used as an alternate base for counting and measurement by various folk in Northern Europe. It may be that the ten based numbers and the twelve based numbers were used in different ways--who knows? What does seem likely is that when people began to count units of 12 they had to remember that there were two more numbers per unit than they had fingers. As for 11, I speculate that it was merely the number between the two bases, twelve and ten. Greycats 30 August 2005

Renaming the number Eleven to Ten-one

I don't see any mention of the idea, to rename the word eleven into Ten-one. For example twenty one, does not have it's own name but rather is named after it's ten place followed by the one's place.

To further illustrate how it should follow. Thirty one, thirty two, thirty three, thirty four... Twenty one, Twenty two, Twenty three, Twenty four.. Ten one, Ten two, Ten three, ten four...

Why you ask? to keep the wording consistent and make counting for young children easier. Thus they can advance in mathematics quicker, adding into that the concept of compound interest in learning. Small changes in the beginning make a huge difference.

Naming ten one, as eleven actually makes it unnecessarily difficult for young children as it doesn't need to be. As adults we forget this as we've already passed through, the unnecessary difficulty.

Lowering the difficulty by renaming the number will help increase the number of kids that enjoy math.

The book "The Outliers: The Story of success" mentions how Asian countries such as China do this in their numbering system.

--RichardFry (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not the Academy of the English Language. There's absolutely no chance of this happening. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Requested move 6 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: NOT MOVED. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

11 (number) → 11

12 (number) → 12

13 (number) → 13

14 (number) → 14

15 (number) → 15

16 (number) → 16

17 (number) → 17

18 (number) → 18

19 (number) → 19

20 (number) → 20

...

100 (number) → 100

– See Talk:AD 1. Timo3 12:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. The idea that 100 primarily means a number, while 101 primarily means a year, is totally artibrary and ridiculous. I'm under the impression that you would replace 1969 with 1969 (number) because the only value less than four million for which a "mod-ification" of the standard Ackermann Function does not stabilize is more important than chronologically documenting history. Is there any ambiguous range? Where do you draw the line? wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The disambiguation page is a far better page to have as the entry for "11". Power~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, I don't even know what the rationale is. "See Talk:AD 1" directs me to a long and inchoate discussion which I can't wade through and figure what the nominator is thinking. Suggesting perusal of Talk:AD 1 as a supplement after the nominator has outlined the general case is fine; giving no rational at all isn't.

Second of all, on the merits, nominator needs to explain: "This change will serve the reader, make the article's appearance in lists easier to understand, and help the reader instantly understand what the article is about when she does access it, and otherwise enhance her experience, because ___________". Well what goes in the blank? Search me. Herostratus (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 23:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

numerology

Certes Since it isn't mentioned at the (admittedly very poor) destination page, we simply remove it CapnZapp (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"11 (number" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 11 (number has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § 11 (number until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)