Talk:143 (number)

I love you[edit]

I am very skeptical of this 143 as a way to say "I love you." Seems awfully impersonal. Would it really be that much work to write "ivgfddfuvu" or some other mangle like that?

And if it really is true, how do you verify it? I imagine that a motivated teenage book author wouldn't choose to write a book on text messaging language mutilations. So how do you find a credible website? Anton Mravcek 22:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it keeps getting added back to the page but the person doesnt bother to provide a refrence to a book or even to a website. That's good enough for me to just remove it. Numerao 22:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The job is to verify content, not to remove it. Google gives this: [1], there's enough explanation there.

That website doesn't look very reliable. Is the name of the band "Musiq Soul Child" or "Music Sould Child"? Can I buy a CD from Amazon.com with that 143 song on it? CompositeFan 17:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pagers are long gone, but I actually saw 143 in a handwritten letter once. So it spread beyond its original context. There was also 637 "always and forever".

I think this may have been easier to verify twelve years ago than it is today. Though it was really more of a 90s thing ... even by 2006 cellphones were more common than beepers. To answer the other question, ... no, pagers did not have letter keys, at all. There would be no other obvious way to write out a phrase. —Soap— 17:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google[edit]

143^143 is the largest x^x function that the Google Calculator can calculate. The largest factorial was mentioned on its number page, I don't know if this should be mentioned as well.

P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.245.3 (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

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.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/11/14/wheaton.dance.ap/index.html
- In 143 (number) on 2011-05-23 03:03:37, 404 Not Found
- In 143 (number) on 2011-06-01 15:37:55, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

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.thetimes.co.za/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=521101%7CThe
- In 143 (number) on 2011-05-23 03:03:44, 404 Not Found
- In 143 (number) on 2011-06-01 15:38:02, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

434?[edit]

434? Isn't it illogical to say 143 corresponds to 'I love you'? Define a function f on {statements having all the words with no of letters less than or equal to 9} to the set of natural numbers such that if n is no. of words in statement 's' with words w1, w2,...w_n, then f(s)= g(w1)*10^(n-1) + g(w2)*10^(n-2) +...+ g(w_n). [Where g(w) = no. of letters in word 'w'] .

Now clearly f is not invertible . Since there are multiple words having no. of letters=i for all positive integers i less than or equal to 9. Hence there doesn't exist a unique statement 's*' for which f(s*)=143.

The argument implies that '143 means I love you' should be considered simply a convention that society has accepted rather than a mathematical identity in any form. AarshChotalia (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]