4 ms·

What's special about this number? (0-9999)

27 points by ottbot 16y ago

joshu 16y ago
I wonder which one is least special.
- e1ven 16y ago
  Wouldn't that then become a self-fulfilling loop? That number's non-specialness would be something special about it, so you'd need the next non-special number, and so on until they were all covered.
  - aquadoctorbob 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
    - pw0ncakes 16y ago
      To which one reply is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Logic
    - mrfish 16y ago
      The people who wrote this entry have too much time on their hands. Hey I must have to much time on my hands to make this comment about people having too much time on their hands thus presenting at least a ironic situation and at most a Time Wasting Paradox.
- pw0ncakes 16y ago
  The lowest dominated strategy for the "smallest unique integer" game with 3 players.
mrfish 16y ago
I thought "42" was the meaning of life?
fbu 16y ago
9945 = 17!!!! I can't stop laughing at this one.
- DanHulton 16y ago
  ...why?
  - aquadoctorbob 16y ago
    Well, in writing -- Internet discourse in particular -- multiple exclamation marks are occasionally (ab)used to indicate absurd levels of emotional intensity on the part of the speaker. The factorial operation is also denoted by an exclamation mark; to someone unfamiliar with that fact, or someone capable of intentionally conflating the two usages, it appears that the statement "9945 = 17!!!!" represents someone excitedly asserting a falsehood (i.e. "9945 = 17") or possibly suggesting that shouting a number somehow increases its value. Each line on the linked article is a more-or-less stoic mathematical fact, and the humor comes from the subversion of this expectation when the entry for 9945 is misinterpreted as I described.
pohl 16y ago
I noticed most (maybe all) of the links go to wolfram math world. Out of curiosity, I compared a few entries there against Wikipedia, and I like the latter a lot better. My sample size was pretty small, though.

27 points by ottbot 16y ago

joshu 16y ago

I wonder which one is least special.

e1ven 16y ago
Wouldn't that then become a self-fulfilling loop? That number's non-specialness would be something special about it, so you'd need the next non-special number, and so on until they were all covered.
- aquadoctorbob 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
  - pw0ncakes 16y ago
    To which one reply is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_Logic
  - mrfish 16y ago
    The people who wrote this entry have too much time on their hands. Hey I must have to much time on my hands to make this comment about people having too much time on their hands thus presenting at least a ironic situation and at most a Time Wasting Paradox.
pw0ncakes 16y ago
The lowest dominated strategy for the "smallest unique integer" game with 3 players.

mrfish 16y ago

I thought "42" was the meaning of life?

fbu 16y ago

9945 = 17!!!! I can't stop laughing at this one.

DanHulton 16y ago
...why?
- aquadoctorbob 16y ago
  Well, in writing -- Internet discourse in particular -- multiple exclamation marks are occasionally (ab)used to indicate absurd levels of emotional intensity on the part of the speaker. The factorial operation is also denoted by an exclamation mark; to someone unfamiliar with that fact, or someone capable of intentionally conflating the two usages, it appears that the statement "9945 = 17!!!!" represents someone excitedly asserting a falsehood (i.e. "9945 = 17") or possibly suggesting that shouting a number somehow increases its value. Each line on the linked article is a more-or-less stoic mathematical fact, and the humor comes from the subversion of this expectation when the entry for 9945 is misinterpreted as I described.

pohl 16y ago

I noticed most (maybe all) of the links go to wolfram math world. Out of curiosity, I compared a few entries there against Wikipedia, and I like the latter a lot better. My sample size was pretty small, though.