Pick a Number, Win a Book

2

e^(pi) - pi

http://xkcd.com/c217.html

Not my number, but a good number all the same:

H{F(n)}=F^n(n);H{H{H{H{BB(9)}}}}

It's the xkcd number, explanation here:
http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/03/14/large-numbers/#comments

23

Always liked it... (plus, its much more random than 17!)

Are we picking numbers like 2 ad 26 or like e and pi? I'd go with two for the former, but Aaron already took it (damn you!), and probably h-bar for the latter, although e and pi are awfully tempting.

0.

1970

18.579

It's my lucky number.

42.

137 considered and rejected as inexact pandering.

7: number of notes in the diatonic scale, number of colors in refracted light (because Newton wanted it to be similar to the diatonic scale).

1/BB(1) + 1/BB(2) + 1/BB(3) + ...

where BB is the busy beaver function.

e^i

11

Nothing fancy...

17

i

My number's imaginary!

366

10^500

c

1729. It's the smallest number that can be written as the sum of two cubes in two different ways, and has a Ramanujam story to go with it.

A googol.

N, where N = the winning number.

Somehow, I'm sure this isn't going to work.

uhmmm, ... 21

(42, the answer to everything was taken)

1/137, exactly. In honor of E.R. Eddington, bless his hopeful heart.

206

It's how you get home.

1 (one)

Eleventy-one

e^((i \pi)/5) is my favorite number, therefore the best number.

300 for the pop culture king.

Thirty-seven!

5318008

/no, not a phone number...think TI-83

Eight-seven. I just like the way it sounds.

2/(1 + sqrt(5))

of course it would sound even better if I didn't typo. So, to clarify: Eighty-seven. 87.

â/0

422

a number.

I don't know about best, but I'd say 26 is an okay, average number. It may not be as sexy as celebrities like Ï, ln(3), or Chaitin's constant, all the same it's still physically relevant in the real world. For example, 26 is the number of protons in the (ordinary-matter) nucleus with the highest binding energy - 56-Iron [1]. Another real-world example is that 26=25+1 [2], the number of spacetime dimensions [3]. It's practical to know the dimension of the spacetime you live in - otherwise how could you read a map? So 25+1 is useful to know when you're driving.

John Baez points out that 26 is special because it's (1+1) more than 24, and 24 is the only integer N>1 such that 1^2 + 2^2 + ... + N^2 is a perfect square. [4] Kinda neat.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotop…
[2] my calculator
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory
[4] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week124.html

"nullity" because it's *so* cool and revolutionary (http://tinyurl.com/yl47tq)

haha...right

I've been lurking for a while...

\frac{1}{\aleph_0}, i.e., an infinitesimal in number systems where it is allowed and zero in all other ("normal" ;)) ones. I like number systems where you can do meaningful arithmetic with infinity, and I like higher infinities than the normal one. Of course, there isn't much practical value, but who said mathematics had to be practical?

Also, I like 0.

66^66, as recently featured in footnote 3 of Douglas Scott and Ali Frolop's model of natural dark energy.

299792458
because I DO NOT WANT THESE BOOKS!

1

It is the first of many.

555

44, the maximum weight of a regulation curling stone in pounds.

-1/12

Because zeta(-1)=1+2+3+4+...=-1/12, and it still baffles me. Imagine an economy working on zeta(-1).. Unimaginable! Yet, it is what fixes D to 26 in bosonic string theory when Lorentz invariance is required.

The Number Fex.

4*8*15*16*23*42 = 7418880

So my number: 7418880

Parhaps it's ill adviced to use those numbers for a lottery... but then again... I'm not a beliver :D

Explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology_of_Lost#The_Numbers

Hmmm....

2009

I´ll explain why if I win.

6575309

B-)

blue

square root of -13

Someone took 2, so I'll take 4. Having many nice properties, such as 2+2=2*2=2^2=4. Smallest non-prime even number. Also the number of the date and the month that you posted this. I think I have made my case for 4.

the fine structure constant

alpha! Which is NOT 1/137 :-)

70.0 degrees

This is the answer to the question:
A 0.001 60-nm photon scatters from a free electron. For what (photon) scattering angle does the recoiling electron have kinetic energy equal to the energy of the scattered photon?

Question #23 from chapter 40 of the Serway-Jewett Physics for Scientists and Engineers 6th edition...I'm working on my physics homework and I recognized a similar book in the picture! I am in a love-hate relationship with physics.

My number... 17.
Why? Read here
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/is_17_the_most_random_nu…

:-)

×

Thanks, Georg!

99. Hopefully the lowest correct answer without going over. (The Price is Right was on, and if it's good enough for Bob Barker, it's good enough for me.)

68 Because it is hard to concentrate on two things at once and do either very well.

k.
The quaternion, that is.

811.3nm

2377#-1 = 1337247 7493552802 1377306947 0747897307 5249077111 9246250397 2542008274 0961528278 5512848282 7679601581 3181527539 7529887928 2410416157 6841170718 6066140049 1602499127 3932827667 6493177629 7669485038 8846845885 2467666950 2441705679 2411109964 8731163026 5216177441 3274847634 8754867603 1635565598 6853321514 4565452231 6276985759 4978170273 1597453940 5690841845 3710941377 2880189098 4211469619 9761393094 9581948189 5279636455 5607538598 8790517047 9384013942 6034830786 0857023244 0892550352 6119558196 4808360039 8406913755 8719954346 0647318843 1686427806 8816476675 4641407584 0449732879 9453094965 1040837553 0033390735 8786890460 7846136475 5368049547 0537374341 0598497903 4515327040 2888688217 0368591968 1754727843 7096892402 4636586472 9946369677 9426677383 3583079994 0242772885 0709528225 4823862723 1205722559 9453250791 7475470074 7465480592 8181905824 6587528173 7653497807 8632405527 4028995735 0702594954 6155246193 7927733503 9516336436 4480858911 5360409704 6204530691 1215814804 3832200967 4758221155 4527874220 9278506041 0414558021 6012429989 0767420119 2169897374 1675973189

(that's a single number, I don't want to mess up people's browsers)

phi!

C. Not the Speed of Light, but the Number of the Continuum. C is the number of real numbers. Cantor showed that C is greater than Aleph-null, the number of integers. But how much greater? Does C = Aleph-1, the number of sets contained in Alkeph-null? Or something bigger? Smaller?

This blog comment is in memory of Paul Cohen, supermathematician, who passed away last month, and our mutual high school alumni. His great work challenged our understanding of "number" as nobody has in decades. And Paul Cohen made C an object of extreme mystery.

Paul Cohen, 1934-2007

Cohen proved that the continuum hypothesis is independent of the axioms of set theory, and that the axiom of choice was independent of the other axioms.

Godel had already established that both the continuum
hypothesis and axiom of choice were consistent, in the sense if you could derive a contradiction by adding them as axioms then you could derive a contradiction in set theory without them. Godel accomplished this by defining a certain minimal model of set theory, the constructible universe, and showing that in this model both axioms hold.

Paul Cohen then completed the proof of independence by showing that you can construct a model of set theory in which both axioms are false. To do so, he had to invent a new technique, known as forcing.

So it is consistent that C is in between Aleph-null and Aleph-1. It is consistent that C is greater than Aleph-1. He said, unofficially, unprovably, that he felt C was an amazingly rich and incredible number, conceivably greater than Aleph-1, Aleph-2, Aleph-3, ..., Aleph-n for all integers n, Aleph-Aleph-0, Aleph-Aleph-1, Aleph-Aleph-n for all integers n, and so forth. He felt that it was unconstructably humongous among the infinities.

And Physicists think that set set of real numbers are a nicely behaved set of parameters of physical variables, when Paul Cohen showed that the bizarre nature of C makes "real numbers" weirder than anything H. P. Lovecraft, Isaac Asimov, and Rudy Rucker could have cooked up together at all all night con party.

His Wikipedia biography has the oddest snippet:

"His twin sons Steven and Eric played the Dancing
Twins on the TV show Ally McBeal."

As a graduate of Stuyvesant High School, in the same
class as Steven E. Koonin (1968), well after Paul
Cohen and
* Joshua Lederberg (Class of 1941) - 1958 Nobel
Prize in Physiology or Medicine
* Robert Fogel (Class of 1944) - 1993 Nobel
Memorial Prize in economics
* Roald Hoffmann (Class of 1954) - 1981 Nobel
Prize in Chemistry
* Richard Axel (Class of 1963) - 2004 Nobel Prize
in Physiology or Medicine

but before Brian R. Greene and Lisa Randall (Class of
1980), I can assure you that Paul Cohen was held forth as an exemplar to all aspiring Mathematicians amongs us.

Stuyvesant's Listing of Notable Alumni in the field of Mathematics.

Bergman, George M.
Graduated: 1960

Cohen, Paul J.
Graduated: 1950

Elkies, Noam D.
Graduated: 1982

Harbater, David
Graduated: 1970

Hochster, Melvin
Graduated: 1960

Khazanov, Aleksandr
Graduated: 1995

Lax, Peter D.
Graduated: 1943

Stein, Elias M.
Graduated: 1949

Weichsel, Paul M.
Graduated: 1949

Zimmer, Robert J.
Graduated: 1964

28

It's my favorite perfect number.

Ï1
Eat your heart out, aleph

1357

Nothing clever- but I'm all about free books.

22/7

I'll take 2 to the power of aleph-null. Did ThePolynomial and I choose the same number? Good question.

6191*2^459141+1

Largest prime I personally have proved prime.

Details here

1/9 is sorely underrated.

1970+37i

My number is 27.

ei π

355/113

Before calculators had pi keys, this was (and still is) the best fit in small numbers.

(The next better fit is 52163/16604.)

19

3872

0b101010
(42)

Four. Say it out loud. It is the most pleasing number.

one and only one number

"The number of the counting shall be.."

3

867-5309.

1234567890.

666

Per blogmeister request, I'm not submitting another number. I'm just clarifying and approving of a nice suggestion (# 78) by Simon: "Four."

It's the most "honest" number in English, because FOUR has 4 letters. Long digression on "TWO CUBED" not mentioned here... Long digression on Roman numerals not mentioned either, because "Rome" is finished on HBO, and "The Sopranos" starts its final season this Sunday. Long digression on "playing the numbers" omitted because of someone named Guido walking towards me with a baseball bat...

5.27285738 * 10^(-35), which, given the blog, is hbar/2 lacking the SI units.

80085

I didn't see any quaternions yet, so:

1 + -2i + 3j + 4k

9,192,631,770

285.2

960939379918958884971672962127852754715004339660129306651505519271702802395266424689642842174350718121267153782770623355993237280874144307891325963941337723487857735749823926629715517173716995165232890538221612403238855866184013235585136048828693337902491454229288667081096184496091705183454067827731551705405381627380967602565625016981482083418783163849115590225610003652351370343874461848378737238198224849863465033159410054974700593138339226497249461751545728366702369745461014655997933798537483143786841806593422227898388722980000748404719

Reynolds (number)

4

17, because Cosmic Variance said so. As did Brust.

I'll be a trigonometer today and vote for cos(pi/4).

I'm entering simply because you're nearing 100 numbers and no one has yet suggested e.

12, because no other number has a better theme song/video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQMDmf2ZvUg

The smallest number that cannot be described in less than fourteen English words.

121

Skewes' first number, eee79.

Maybe this will help validate the hours I've spent watching LOST: 4 8 15 16 23 42

69, a number you geeks probably know nothing about.

since i'm in physics right now, i'll go with mu naught = 4piE-19

my bad thats 4piE-7

Fe2O3 + MnO2 + nH2O + Si + Al2O3
chemical formula for an umber (all umber, i guess)
my number is 5!

my number is the probability that I will win.

43

Stephanie Thompson's number "is the probability that I will win." That will turn out to be either 0 [ # 6 | mollishka]
or 1 [ # 42 | Dlanod].

144

6006- very pretty, and symmetrical.

1337

too many.

Memo chat to Wyatt:

E is the Erdos-Borwein constant in mathematics, and Energy in physics. That you confuse the inability of some $100 calculators to display something as simple as 10^{-7} with correct notation is a sad result of technology driving teaching rather than the other way around.

Obligatory physics comment:

mu_0 is 1 if you choose the right units. Any number whose significance depends on the units used (such as c, which is also 1 if you choose your units properly, or hbar/2) isn't very important in this discussion. That is why you see a predominance of dimensionless physical quantites (alpha) and a variety of interesting numbers. My vote would go to the first person to mention Ramanujan, but he spelled the name wrong.

Erdos-Borwein. That's two really amazing people in one term [# 112]. Jonathan Borwein is probably the leading figure in the "Experimental Mathematics" movement. Amazing field. Many astonishing numbers and equations found thereby.

\hbar = c = 1

72

Avogadro's Number

I've always been a fan of 1/49; 0.020408163265.....

Comment on #116

An Exact Value for Avogadro's Number

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/54773/pag…...

# Fujii, K., A. Waseda et al. 2003. Evaluation of the molar volume of silicon crystals for a determination of the Avogadro constant. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 52:646-651.
# Girard, G. 1990. The washing and cleaning of kilogram prototypes at the BIPM. (http://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/Monographie1990-1-EN.pdf
# Mills, I., et al. 2005. Redefinition of the kilogram: A decision whose time has come. Metrologia 42:71-80.
# Robinson, I. 2006. Weighty matters. Scientific American 295(b):102-109.

google

Correction to #119?

1 googol = 10^100, that is, the digit 1 followed by one hundred. This is NOT the same as "Google." Or is that the joke?

Dr. Vos Post:

Perhaps 600,613?

I pick 100.

G

113

mu - the beauty lies in its versatility.

do i get brownie points for going to a small liberal arts college? =D

[1+sqrt(5)]/2