As you can see from the picture, my desk is a mess. Also, I've come into possession of a second free copy of Paul Davies's new book Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life (one is an advance reading copy in trade paper, the other a spiffy new hardback). You can read my lukewarm review, from which you can easily deduce that I don't actually need to own two copies of this book.
Thus, I am pleased to announce The Offical Uncertain Principles Cosmic Jackpot Giveaway Contest. I will give away one of these two copies to the person who successfully completes the following challenge:
Pick a number.
Leave a comment containing one and only one number (this means you, Jonathan Vos Post). The person with the best number wins the extra copy of Cosmic Jackpot, plus the promotional material included by the publisher.
Contest entries must be received in comments by midnight on Sunday, April 8, 2007. The winner will be announced on Monday, April 9, and will need to contact me with a shipping address to claim the prize. One entry per person, no purchase necessary, void where prohibited.
(Credit where due: Kate actually suggested "Pick a number" as the contest topic. She wasn't serious, but I actually think it's kind of appropriate, so here you go...)
Comments
2
Posted by: Aaron Bergman | April 4, 2007 9:13 PM
e^(pi) - pi
http://xkcd.com/c217.html
Posted by: Jimbo | April 4, 2007 9:18 PM
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
Posted by: KevinQ | April 4, 2007 9:22 PM
23
Always liked it... (plus, its much more random than 17!)
Posted by: Nathan White | April 4, 2007 9:29 PM
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.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 4, 2007 9:33 PM
0.
Posted by: mollishka | April 4, 2007 9:33 PM
1970
Posted by: Edi | April 4, 2007 9:35 PM
18.579
It's my lucky number.
Posted by: qetzal | April 4, 2007 9:39 PM
42.
137 considered and rejected as inexact pandering.
Posted by: CCPhysicist | April 4, 2007 9:48 PM
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).
Posted by: Scott Spiegelberg | April 4, 2007 9:51 PM
1/BB(1) + 1/BB(2) + 1/BB(3) + ...
where BB is the busy beaver function.
Posted by: Pseudonym | April 4, 2007 9:53 PM
e^i
Posted by: Nelly | April 4, 2007 10:02 PM
11
Nothing fancy...
Posted by: magista | April 4, 2007 10:09 PM
17
Posted by: Ponderer of Things | April 4, 2007 10:10 PM
i
My number's imaginary!
Posted by: Jeff | April 4, 2007 10:10 PM
366
Posted by: Natalie | April 4, 2007 10:21 PM
10^500
Posted by: Matt B. | April 4, 2007 10:26 PM
c
Posted by: yami | April 4, 2007 10:29 PM
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.
Posted by: Davis | April 4, 2007 10:42 PM
A googol.
Posted by: Ponder Stibbons | April 4, 2007 10:42 PM
N, where N = the winning number.
Somehow, I'm sure this isn't going to work.
Posted by: Erik V. Olson | April 4, 2007 10:44 PM
uhmmm, ... 21
(42, the answer to everything was taken)
Posted by: Eric Irvine | April 4, 2007 10:49 PM
1/137, exactly. In honor of E.R. Eddington, bless his hopeful heart.
Posted by: NL | April 4, 2007 10:53 PM
206
It's how you get home.
Posted by: Upstate NY | April 4, 2007 10:57 PM
1 (one)
Posted by: John Kingman | April 4, 2007 10:58 PM
Eleventy-one
Posted by: Dennis | April 4, 2007 11:03 PM
e^((i \pi)/5) is my favorite number, therefore the best number.
Posted by: gabey | April 4, 2007 11:08 PM
300 for the pop culture king.
Posted by: jrolsma | April 4, 2007 11:10 PM
Thirty-seven!
Posted by: Kail | April 4, 2007 11:21 PM
5318008
/no, not a phone number...think TI-83
Posted by: Stephen | April 4, 2007 11:30 PM
Eight-seven. I just like the way it sounds.
Posted by: Heidi | April 4, 2007 11:33 PM
2/(1 + sqrt(5))
Posted by: Coin | April 4, 2007 11:36 PM
of course it would sound even better if I didn't typo. So, to clarify: Eighty-seven. 87.
Posted by: Heidi | April 4, 2007 11:37 PM
∞/0
Posted by: glenstein | April 4, 2007 11:40 PM
422
Posted by: a cornellian | April 4, 2007 11:48 PM
a number.
Posted by: Edi | April 4, 2007 11:52 PM
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 π, 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_isotopes.svg
[2] my calculator
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory
[4] http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week124.html
Posted by: Thomas | April 5, 2007 12:51 AM
"nullity" because it's *so* cool and revolutionary (http://tinyurl.com/yl47tq)
haha...right
Posted by: Kevin | April 5, 2007 12:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Sohum | April 5, 2007 12:59 AM
66^66, as recently featured in footnote 3 of Douglas Scott and Ali Frolop's model of natural dark energy.
Posted by: Luke | April 5, 2007 1:11 AM
299792458
because I DO NOT WANT THESE BOOKS!
Posted by: smart arse | April 5, 2007 1:13 AM
1
It is the first of many.
Posted by: Dlanod | April 5, 2007 1:14 AM
555
Posted by: Kim | April 5, 2007 1:25 AM
44, the maximum weight of a regulation curling stone in pounds.
Posted by: Craig | April 5, 2007 1:27 AM
-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.
Posted by: theoreticalminimum | April 5, 2007 1:55 AM
The Number Fex.
Posted by: Kim | April 5, 2007 2:16 AM
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
Posted by: Kaj | April 5, 2007 3:30 AM
Hmmm....
2009
I´ll explain why if I win.
Posted by: Johat | April 5, 2007 4:00 AM
6575309
B-)
Posted by: Brad S | April 5, 2007 4:55 AM
blue
Posted by: Paul A | April 5, 2007 6:25 AM
square root of -13
Posted by: TM | April 5, 2007 7:20 AM
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.
Posted by: Melanie | April 5, 2007 7:29 AM
the fine structure constant
alpha! Which is NOT 1/137 :-)
Posted by: perry | April 5, 2007 8:15 AM
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.
Posted by: SN | April 5, 2007 8:35 AM
My number... 17.
Why? Read here
http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/is_17_the_most_random_number.php
:-)
Posted by: Luis | April 5, 2007 8:48 AM
א
Thanks, Georg!
Posted by: cisko | April 5, 2007 9:15 AM
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.)
Posted by: Halcy0n | April 5, 2007 9:20 AM
68 Because it is hard to concentrate on two things at once and do either very well.
Posted by: inanna | April 5, 2007 10:25 AM
k.
The quaternion, that is.
Posted by: Mark--> | April 5, 2007 10:34 AM
811.3nm
Posted by: Simon | April 5, 2007 10:54 AM
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)
Posted by: marcelo | April 5, 2007 10:57 AM
phi!
Posted by: Rebecca | April 5, 2007 11:08 AM
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
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 5, 2007 11:35 AM
28
It's my favorite perfect number.
Posted by: thm | April 5, 2007 11:35 AM
ω1
Eat your heart out, aleph
Posted by: ThePolynomial | April 5, 2007 11:52 AM
1357
Nothing clever- but I'm all about free books.
Posted by: jtdub | April 5, 2007 11:58 AM
22/7
Posted by: Jon | April 5, 2007 12:01 PM
I'll take 2 to the power of aleph-null. Did ThePolynomial and I choose the same number? Good question.
Posted by: Nick | April 5, 2007 12:08 PM
6191*2^459141+1
Largest prime I personally have proved prime.
Details here
Posted by: John Dilick | April 5, 2007 12:41 PM
1/9 is sorely underrated.
Posted by: Capella | April 5, 2007 1:22 PM
1970+37i
Posted by: Bill LaLonde | April 5, 2007 1:37 PM
My number is 27.
Posted by: TankDiveGirl | April 5, 2007 2:02 PM
ei π
Posted by: N. Johnson | April 5, 2007 2:26 PM
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.)
Posted by: Roy | April 5, 2007 2:31 PM
19
Posted by: C. Birkbeck | April 5, 2007 3:05 PM
3872
Posted by: ike | April 5, 2007 3:12 PM
0b101010
(42)
Posted by: Bryan | April 5, 2007 3:18 PM
Four. Say it out loud. It is the most pleasing number.
Posted by: Simon | April 5, 2007 3:38 PM
one and only one number
Posted by: CJ | April 5, 2007 3:58 PM
"The number of the counting shall be.."
3
Posted by: DrSteve | April 5, 2007 4:16 PM
867-5309.
Posted by: Richard Campbell | April 5, 2007 4:18 PM
1234567890.
Posted by: Richard Campbell | April 5, 2007 4:19 PM
666
Posted by: Matt | April 5, 2007 4:23 PM
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...
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 5, 2007 4:25 PM
5.27285738 * 10^(-35), which, given the blog, is hbar/2 lacking the SI units.
Posted by: PhilipJ | April 5, 2007 5:31 PM
80085
Posted by: medina | April 5, 2007 6:37 PM
I didn't see any quaternions yet, so:
1 + -2i + 3j + 4k
Posted by: Michael Zappe | April 5, 2007 6:41 PM
9,192,631,770
Posted by: Tom Renbarger | April 5, 2007 6:45 PM
285.2
Posted by: Colst | April 5, 2007 7:02 PM
960939379918958884971672962127852754715004339660129306651505519271702802395266424689642842174350718121267153782770623355993237280874144307891325963941337723487857735749823926629715517173716995165232890538221612403238855866184013235585136048828693337902491454229288667081096184496091705183454067827731551705405381627380967602565625016981482083418783163849115590225610003652351370343874461848378737238198224849863465033159410054974700593138339226497249461751545728366702369745461014655997933798537483143786841806593422227898388722980000748404719
Posted by: Ron | April 5, 2007 7:39 PM
Reynolds (number)
Posted by: Lindsay | April 5, 2007 7:46 PM
4
Posted by: soumit | April 5, 2007 8:03 PM
17, because Cosmic Variance said so. As did Brust.
Posted by: Andrea | April 5, 2007 8:05 PM
I'll be a trigonometer today and vote for cos(pi/4).
Posted by: Martin Madsen | April 5, 2007 8:45 PM
I'm entering simply because you're nearing 100 numbers and no one has yet suggested e.
Posted by: Bob Oldendorf | April 6, 2007 12:37 AM
12, because no other number has a better theme song/video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQMDmf2ZvUg
Posted by: musecumulus | April 6, 2007 12:42 AM
The smallest number that cannot be described in less than fourteen English words.
Posted by: Ross Smith | April 6, 2007 1:18 AM
121
Posted by: Bookwhore | April 6, 2007 1:51 AM
Skewes' first number, eee79.
Posted by: Zack Weinberg | April 6, 2007 11:53 AM
Maybe this will help validate the hours I've spent watching LOST: 4 8 15 16 23 42
Posted by: Jordan | April 6, 2007 1:07 PM
69, a number you geeks probably know nothing about.
Posted by: paula | April 6, 2007 1:27 PM
since i'm in physics right now, i'll go with mu naught = 4piE-19
Posted by: Wyatt | April 6, 2007 1:41 PM
my bad thats 4piE-7
Posted by: Wyatt | April 6, 2007 1:43 PM
Fe2O3 + MnO2 + nH2O + Si + Al2O3
chemical formula for an umber (all umber, i guess)
my number is 5!
Posted by: mudi-b | April 6, 2007 5:46 PM
my number is the probability that I will win.
Posted by: Stephanie Thompson | April 6, 2007 6:11 PM
43
Posted by: Sarah | April 6, 2007 7:29 PM
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].
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 6, 2007 9:01 PM
144
Posted by: Mary | April 6, 2007 10:12 PM
6006- very pretty, and symmetrical.
Posted by: Alex | April 6, 2007 10:36 PM
1337
Posted by: Livia | April 7, 2007 1:33 AM
too many.
Posted by: eemeli | April 7, 2007 7:05 AM
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.
Posted by: CCPhysicist | April 7, 2007 12:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 7, 2007 2:56 PM
\hbar = c = 1
Posted by: Urbano | April 7, 2007 2:57 PM
72
Posted by: Dan | April 8, 2007 1:13 PM
Avogadro's Number
Posted by: SphericalQuantumWell | April 8, 2007 1:41 PM
I've always been a fan of 1/49; 0.020408163265.....
Posted by: Antangil | April 8, 2007 2:53 PM
Comment on #116
An Exact Value for Avogadro's Number
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/54773/page/5;jsessionid=baa9...
# 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.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 8, 2007 5:05 PM
google
Posted by: Lillie | April 8, 2007 7:13 PM
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?
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | April 9, 2007 1:07 AM
Dr. Vos Post:
Perhaps 600,613?
Posted by: Coin | April 9, 2007 5:36 AM
I pick 100.
Posted by: jason slaunwhite | April 9, 2007 7:37 AM
G
Posted by: Dr Eye | April 9, 2007 1:18 PM
113
Posted by: Ced | April 11, 2007 8:36 AM
mu - the beauty lies in its versatility.
do i get brownie points for going to a small liberal arts college? =D
Posted by: Swattie | April 12, 2007 1:59 PM