![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first line of this article totally contradicts the first line the article to which it also refers the reader, the article on stellar mass black holes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.126.226 ( talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Intermediate-mass black holes appear to be much less common than stellar-size black holes and also rarer than galaxy-sized black holes. But how much rarer? It would be very useful to include a table, or preferably a graph, showing the number of black holes detected or predicted at each order of magnitude from the smallest detected hole size to the largest [ie across 9 orders of magnitude from 1.4 to 18 billion stellar masses] -- Tediouspedant ( talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Reference 1 appears to have been published by ESA News on Jan 3, 2007 but retrieved on 2006-05-24. Unless this is the first evidence of somebody able to read into the future, there must be some typing mistake.-- Franco3450 ( talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused after reading a new article here, seeing the same date of discovery in the article for GCIRS 13E and this new article's HLX-1 object. Are these the same celestial objects, or a coincidence in discovery dates, with HLX-1 still not mentioned in the article? — Northgrove 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Quasi-star suggests a different, not listed origin for intermediate-mass black holes. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.205.199 ( talk) 00:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The use of scientific notation in this article is odd. Usually the point of SI is to prevent unwieldy rows of zeros from occurring. But there is only one number (109) that to me seems reasonable to shorten that way. I'm sure I've never seen 100 or 10,000 written as 102 or 104 before. I'll change it if no one objects. -- Algr ( talk) 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first line of this article totally contradicts the first line the article to which it also refers the reader, the article on stellar mass black holes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.126.226 ( talk) 14:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Intermediate-mass black holes appear to be much less common than stellar-size black holes and also rarer than galaxy-sized black holes. But how much rarer? It would be very useful to include a table, or preferably a graph, showing the number of black holes detected or predicted at each order of magnitude from the smallest detected hole size to the largest [ie across 9 orders of magnitude from 1.4 to 18 billion stellar masses] -- Tediouspedant ( talk) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Reference 1 appears to have been published by ESA News on Jan 3, 2007 but retrieved on 2006-05-24. Unless this is the first evidence of somebody able to read into the future, there must be some typing mistake.-- Franco3450 ( talk) 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused after reading a new article here, seeing the same date of discovery in the article for GCIRS 13E and this new article's HLX-1 object. Are these the same celestial objects, or a coincidence in discovery dates, with HLX-1 still not mentioned in the article? — Northgrove 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Quasi-star suggests a different, not listed origin for intermediate-mass black holes. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.205.199 ( talk) 00:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The use of scientific notation in this article is odd. Usually the point of SI is to prevent unwieldy rows of zeros from occurring. But there is only one number (109) that to me seems reasonable to shorten that way. I'm sure I've never seen 100 or 10,000 written as 102 or 104 before. I'll change it if no one objects. -- Algr ( talk) 08:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)