[math-fun] smallest "non-Web" positive integer?
A Google search indicates that the number 184362536 (chosen more or less at random, after a half dozen failed attempts) does not occur anywhere on the Web. What is the smallest positive integer with this property as of right now? Jim Propp
hello, 1018198112 is a number that returns NOTHING in google. the number 1018198112 does not appear in the OEIS, not in my inverter and not even in the new inverter with 2.3 billion entries. but... by doing a small script (a robot program) to gather the smallest not-known number from google is not difficult to do. Simon Plouffe
This reminds me of the old proof that there are no uninteresting integers. It would be fun to enter this number into a database or newsgroup that is indexed by Google & watch how fast it increments... What you may want is a non-inclusive bound on the smallest such number. The mere mention of the bound won't then increment the number. BTW, I'm sure that one of the Google employees on math-fun would be in a better position to produce this bound than any of the rest of us. At 08:43 AM 11/28/2007, James Propp wrote:
A Google search indicates that the number 184362536 (chosen more or less at random, after a half dozen failed attempts) does not occur anywhere on the Web.
What is the smallest positive integer with this property as of right now?
Jim Propp
This reminds me of the old proof that there are no uninteresting integers.
A Google search indicates that the number 184362536 (chosen more or less at random, after a half dozen failed attempts) does not occur anywhere on the Web.
What is the smallest positive integer with this property as of right now?
for those of you who aren't familiar with my page on the subject: http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/numbers.html according to that, 226 is the smallest uninteresting number. in fact, more than half the e-mail i receive about that page tells me about the inherent contradiction in that statement. erich
Thanks for the link! BTW, "239" deserves a much better entry in your list. Google "hakmem 239" for more info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/239_%28number%29). So Wikipedia already has entries for particular integers. So we are free to edit & update these entries. At 10:26 AM 11/28/2007, Erich Friedman wrote:
This reminds me of the old proof that there are no uninteresting integers.
A Google search indicates that the number 184362536 (chosen more or less at random, after a half dozen failed attempts) does not occur anywhere on the Web.
What is the smallest positive integer with this property as of right now?
for those of you who aren't familiar with my page on the subject:
http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/numbers.html
according to that, 226 is the smallest uninteresting number.
in fact, more than half the e-mail i receive about that page tells me about the inherent contradiction in that statement.
erich
See also P.~Erd\H{o}s, Richard K.~Guy \& J.~L.~Selfridge, Another property of 239 and some related questions, {\it Congressus Numerantium}, {\bf 34}(1982) ({\it Proc.\ 11th Manitoba Conf.\ Numer.\ Math.\ \& Comput.}, Winnipeg 1981) 243--257; {\it MR} {\bf 84f}:10023; {\it Zbl} {\bf536}.10007. R. On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Henry Baker wrote:
Thanks for the link!
BTW, "239" deserves a much better entry in your list. Google "hakmem 239" for more info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/239_%28number%29).
So Wikipedia already has entries for particular integers. So we are free to edit & update these entries.
At 10:26 AM 11/28/2007, Erich Friedman wrote:
This reminds me of the old proof that there are no uninteresting integers.
A Google search indicates that the number 184362536 (chosen more or less at random, after a half dozen failed attempts) does not occur anywhere on the Web.
What is the smallest positive integer with this property as of right now?
for those of you who aren't familiar with my page on the subject:
http://www.stetson.edu/~efriedma/numbers.html
according to that, 226 is the smallest uninteresting number.
in fact, more than half the e-mail i receive about that page tells me about the inherent contradiction in that statement.
erich
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
participants (5)
-
Erich Friedman -
Henry Baker -
James Propp -
Richard Guy -
Simon Plouffe