Comments on: 11630 is the First Uninteresting Number http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/ A blog of recreational math and quantum information theory Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:25:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stan Spencer http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-2269 Stan Spencer Sat, 21 Jan 2012 20:11:59 +0000 http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-2269 I would like to nominate the number 1 as the most boring number. I arrive at this conclusion because it appears in over two thirds of the sequences. What can the other numbers discuss with the number 1? It is everywhere. stan I would like to nominate the number 1 as the most boring number. I arrive at this conclusion because it appears in over two thirds of the sequences. What can the other numbers discuss with the number 1? It is everywhere.

stan

]]> By: David Seed http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-2268 David Seed Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:04:51 +0000 http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-2268 12407 has prime factors 19 and 653 12407 is the 3235th semi-prime. 3235 is also semi-prime, with prime factors 5 and 647, its digit-sum (4) is equal to the digit-sum of its factors (5+647) . Of course it could be that semi-primes are uninteresting, except they are used in cryptography 12407 has prime factors 19 and 653
12407 is the 3235th semi-prime.

3235 is also semi-prime, with prime factors 5 and 647,
its digit-sum (4) is equal to the digit-sum of its factors (5+647) .

Of course it could be that semi-primes are uninteresting, except they are used in cryptography

]]> By: Obscure Numbers http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-1450 Obscure Numbers Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:30:40 +0000 http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-1450 [...] take big databases of numbers and find the biggest missing number. For example, Nathaniel Johnston found that 11630 was the smallest number missing from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. [...] [...] take big databases of numbers and find the biggest missing number. For example, Nathaniel Johnston found that 11630 was the smallest number missing from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. [...]

]]> By: Tweets that mention Nathaniel Johnston » 11630 is the First Uninteresting Number -- Topsy.com http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-529 Tweets that mention Nathaniel Johnston » 11630 is the First Uninteresting Number -- Topsy.com Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:36:13 +0000 http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-529 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by marcus, Jake Dust. Jake Dust said: O menor número desinteressante http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/ [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by marcus, Jake Dust. Jake Dust said: O menor número desinteressante http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/ [...]

]]> By: anonymous http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-508 anonymous Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:23:43 +0000 http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-508 I believe you are incorrect, good sir. There CAN BE NO UNINTERESTING numbers, 11630 is interesting SINCE it IS the first number in the sequence that is uninteresting, and so on and so fourth with the rest of the numbers, any fact about a single number can be interesting, so, 11630 being the first uninteresting numbers makes it interesting. the matter is so controversial because there is no set definition for what quallifies as interesting or uninteresting, every one is different and the way we think, we cna all have different interesting and uninteresting number IN OUR OPINION, there can't possibly be a set uninteresting number. I believe you are incorrect, good sir. There CAN BE NO UNINTERESTING numbers, 11630 is interesting SINCE it IS the first number in the sequence that is uninteresting, and so on and so fourth with the rest of the numbers, any fact about a single number can be interesting, so, 11630 being the first uninteresting numbers makes it interesting.

the matter is so controversial because there is no set definition for what quallifies as interesting or uninteresting, every one is different and the way we think, we cna all have different interesting and uninteresting number IN OUR OPINION, there can’t possibly be a set uninteresting number.

]]> By: Derek Jones http://www.njohnston.ca/2009/06/11630-is-the-first-uninteresting-number/#comment-83 Derek Jones Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:33:24 +0000 http://www.nathanieljohnston.com/?p=374#comment-83 I think that in a real-world (i.e., non-mathematical) context most integers are uninteresting in that they are unlikely to convey useful information unless a significant amount of context is provided. Many floating-point numbers are much more distinctive, e.g., Pi. I am <a href="http://numbers.coding-guidelines.com/" rel="nofollow">collecting distinctive/interesting floating-point numbers</a> with the aim of using them to figure out the application domain of source code. I think that in a real-world (i.e., non-mathematical) context most integers are uninteresting in that they are unlikely to convey useful information unless a significant amount of context is provided.

Many floating-point numbers are much more distinctive, e.g., Pi. I am collecting distinctive/interesting floating-point numbers with the aim of using them to figure out the application domain of source code.

]]>