I am conducting a perfectly serious scientific/linguistic survey the purpose of which however I cannot reveal without skewing the results. Thank you for your participation
What is the most nondescript whole number between 0 and 61
a signature is a unique identifier, usually in the form of the written name. However, it can be something as complex as a product, i.e. a "signature line" referring to a designer.
It's a logical impossibility. If a number were nondescript, it would have the distinctive quality of being nondescript, and therefore wouldn't be nondescript. QED
As a mathematician I could sit and work out the various things that make a number interesting and then choose the one that has the fewest of those properties.
For example you wouldn't want primes, they're quite interesting.
Can't have 6 and 28, they have a quality that they share with 8128, 33550336 and 8589869056 - they are the sum of their factors. I automatically discount any number divisible by 3 because all of those have the property that the sum of their digits is also divisible by three...
...or I could just pluck 56 at random out of the hat.
56.This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
The story is told that a mathematics professor visited an ailing colleague. He traveled by taxi and, upon arriving, commented that the number of the taxi, 1729, was a singularly uninteresting number.
"Not at all," said his ailing colleague. "1729 is the ..."
Complete this sentence. What is the interesting fact about the number 1729? (You can answer it by adding more 11 words at the end of the sentence.)
That's actually quite a famous story if you are a mathematicion. Do you really want someone who knows the answer to give it or would you rather let the non-mathematicians struggle?
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
There's been some work done, which shows that if you randomly pick a number and start looking for it, you realize that it occurs incredibly often. Most often, you just ignore page numbers, addresses, and other such things in your daily routine, but when you single out a number, you notice it tends to appear so often that you think it a common number indeed. It's probably a case of selection bias, where you are just ignoring all of the other data you never noticed.
Obviously, the higher number you get, the less often it will occur. We tried this with 37, and I suggest you all do the same.
a mathematics professor...traveled by taxi ... 1729
"Actually," the mathematician was Godfrey Hardy and he was meeting a visiting mathematician for the first time - Srinivasta Ramanujan, who went on to make a distinguished name for himself...
The tale is also told in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach,, if one hasn't run across it elsewhere. (Or even if one has!)
Originally posted by haberdasher: a mathematics professor...traveled by taxi ... 1729
"Actually," the mathematician was Godfrey Hardy and he was meeting a visiting mathematician for the first time - Srinivasta Ramanujan, who went on to make a distinguished name for himself...
The tale is also told in Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach,, if one hasn't run across it elsewhere. (Or even if one has!)
Aha. Couldn't remember where I'd run across it. That's probably it. Truly marvelous book though maybe a bit heavy going if you don't have a maths/science background.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
Gang: Please forgive me for bubbling this thread back up; I won't make a habit of it. But this survey is very important and I need as many responses as I can get--Thanks again all--Dale
Kalleh: Perhaps so, but I note that one thread got eleven thousand responses, perhaps indicating the rapid growth of WC; and so I hope you will all forgive me for bubbling this one up just one last time--Thanks all
I am conducting a perfectly serious scientific/linguistic survey the purpose of which however I cannot reveal without skewing the results.
A little advice, Dale? Posting a question on a message board is in no way scientific. People can see previous responses, and know that others can see their response. Furthermore, if the topic of your research is linguistic in nature, posting at a linguistic type forum is even worse for a survey, since our responses are not typical.
If you want such a survey, make a simple webpage and have people enter the number there. It would save you a lot of bookkeeping, and make the survey accurate.
Unless of course, you are studying how people respond to surveys on message boards, in which case, I'm terribly confused.
Sean: Thank you for the suggestion. My No. 1 Son has suggested much the same but I am far too old and decrepit to start learning how to manage a blog. By the time I had mastered it I'd be on the verge of expiration
The board has a private messaging function and I can pretty much guarantee that you've had about as many replies as you're likelyb to get. In spite of the numbers shown in the stats we only have about twenty or so regularly active members.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
In spite of the numbers shown in the stats we only have about twenty or so regularly active members.
Bob is right about that, and even considering that, members don't always get a chance to read and/or answer all threads. While surely there are some here who haven't answered, I doubt you'll get any more answers from us. Sorry.
]
