Talk:65,535

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 October 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Untitled

It's a stub, but is there anything else to say about this number?--LukeSurl 12:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Warrior

I'm not entirely convinced that the "Dragon Warrior" reference is notable, and was tempted to simply revert it. However I suppose it is an example of an occurance in the field of computing, and perhaps it is justifiable in an "examples" section. I'd be a little worried that over time, such an examples section could get out of hand (also, the reference could do with a citation). What do people think? Guinness 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it an interesting cultural trivium, especially in the absence of anything else. On reflection, it has nothing to do with the number 65535, it has to do with the game. That said, it is an relevant example of how that limit shows through into normal people's "reality". martinwguy Tue Oct 24 11:13:29 UTC 2006

Internet ports

Likewise, 65535 is a property of TCP/UDP ports; ports are not a property of 65535. How does "related trivia" stand in wiki philosophy? martinwguy Tue Oct 24 12:26:59 UTC 2006

You have a point, however, as noted above, it's probably worth having an example or two of the common occurances. As long as this doesn't just turn in to a ridiculous long list (which I accept that it inevitibly will), it is not unreasonable. Guinness 09:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod removal

There is a clear assertion of notability with this article, and as the highest possible one-byte unsigned integer, this number is important in computer science. Seraphimblade 03:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And WRT tho the examples referring to one use; that's why they are in a sub-section of this particular use! In any case, the article is imho notable enough, and was originally created as a requested article. (p.s. Seraphim, it's the highest possible two-byte, not one-byte int ;) ) Guinness 09:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, of course. See what I get for posting without coffee. Seraphimblade 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The # may be notable for computer science, which would mean keep the article. I don't think it's very notable mathematically, however, the article could have educational and "interconnection" value, possibly getting more kids and also computer people to learn about Fermat primes and stuff.Rich 06:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other 65535-related stuff

Starcraft(the game) Has a 3rd party map editor called "Starforge" that you can download off of the internet, in the Scenarios tab->Unit and heros settings, the attack points cannot surpass 65535 when you try to set the unit's attack points, this probably is the same with other map editors for other games.

On the asciipr0n site, there is a link("FOR 65535 ALWAYS") under the man anally penetrating the women in ascii, when you click on that link("FOR 65535 ALWAYS"), it redirects you to a memorial site. It is written in the middle of the crown depicted in acsii: "BRANDON '65535' JAMES SON, BROTHER, GRANDSON AND FRIEND, BORN 1978 - DIED 2002". - 69.157.190.222 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was also (as "Brandon James Niblett") a user at Everything2, as 65535. It appears that asciipr0n is now registered to one of his former bandmates. The no-doubt valuable domain expires later this year, so set your alarm clocks. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon James Niblett aka 65535 was a co-founder of asciipr0n, member of Cosmos Computer Music, and an early wearable computing user. He took his own life in 2002 at age 23.199.27.253.191 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excel 07 Problem

One source of this info is: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_excel_bug;_ylt=AiK85tpoS5qr9oKonY_PtBus0NUE

I don't know how to cite off the top of my head so if someone else would add this it'd be great. Also, while the value displayed is wrong, additional math on it will treat it as correct (aka, 850 * 77.1 results in 100000, but if you take that and add 5 you get 65540. Excel is just displaying the wrong number when it falls within a certain range.130.127.54.28 18:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried inputing this into a cell in Excel 2007, but it came out as 65535. Has the Excel bug been fixed now? -- Imperator3733 (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was fixed as of October 2007. I think the article should mention that it has been patched citing the KB article [1] --Underdone (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter

It's also the maximum number of followers a user can have on twitter.com. Which is annoying. Kostia (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not done This is no longer true, as evidenced by such accounts as aplusk. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? Really?

So we seem to be saying that the only real reason to keep the article is that it's the highest integer you can represent with 16 bits. Is that really a good enough reason to keep the article, given that you would have to *already* *know* *the* *number* *in* *order* *to* *find* *it*? 78.148.105.42 (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case this information is listed in Integer (computer science). 78.148.105.42 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 65535 (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/20071006040406/http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2007/09/25/calculation-issue-update.aspx to http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2007/09/25/calculation-issue-update.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]