Draft talk:198 (number)

Is 198 interesting?

@David Eppstein: 198 is an abundant number, a composite number, a Harshad number, a practical number and a self number. Are these properties interesting enough to merit an article? I think 262 is currently our lowest uninteresting number; is 198 mundane enough to lower the bar? Certes (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not that those are uninteresting properties per se, but rather that it is not interesting that 198 has those properties. Every number is either abundant or deficient. Almost all numbers are composite. Harshad numbers actually are an uninteresting property. Self numbers are also not very interesting and in both the Harshad and self cases, 198 is far down on the list of these numbers. I am personally quite interested in practical numbers but they are as frequent as the primes and again 198 is far down the list. What I want to see is an interesting property (Wikipedia-notable or OEIS-nice) for which 198 is one of the first five or so of these numbers, not a property that is valid for most or a large fraction of integers. Another non-example: http://oeis.org/A112845 – that's the kind of prominence I'd like to see for 198, second on the list of numbers with that property, but unfortunately A112845 isn't itself an interesting property. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; that sounds like a good case for deletion. Practical and self look like the only two that come anywhere near to qualifying for the requirement of three interesting properties. (I meant to remove composite from the list before pasting, as it's obviously far too common.) Certes (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)