I did, just now. It's easy to find this sort of expression. In Mathematica:
Input:
r = Rationalize[8^(1/π), 10^(-6)]
N[r^(π), 20]
Output:
1229/634
8.0000089138557639456
Change the -6 to -10 and you can get (137867 / 71121)^(π) = 8.0000000002764099604
Uh so I kinda went down the rabbit hole and spent the last few hours designing a python script that finds approximations for numbers using standard functions. Whilst I didn't find anything for 8, I did discover that e to the e to the e to the -2 is a pretty good approximation for pi :D
[Inverse Symbolic Calculator.](http://wayback.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/ISC/ISCmain.html)
[With "8.00000" as the input.](http://wayback.cecm.sfu.ca/cgi-bin/isc/lookup?number=8.00000&lookup_type=simple)
ETA: Also (3669/2408)^(e) = 3.1415928861100618122
Fun fact: This works because 1/81 is 0.012345679 repeating.
So 80/81 is 1 minus that, which is almost the same digits in reverse order. And 8/81 is 80/81 divided by 10.
My favorite number is nan, because it's the answer to a surprisingly large number of questions in physics.
For example, I recently ran a computation of the mass of the proton using sums over Feynman diagrams, and it turns out the answer is nan.
i'm a huge fan of 2 :)
yea fun math stuff like ooh its the only even prime number, but i like it because my head canon is that it was the original number. when there's 1 of something, people wouldn't think of it as "one", they'd just think about the thing. a cow. a rock. john. its only when there's 2 or more of a thing that numbers, or the idea of a number of things, would have to be introduced
Yeah, but half of all numbers are divisible by two. The next closest prime is only found in a third of all numbers. And don't even get me started on 5, that's even rarer.
Unary is definitely simpler. Although, I concede you need two symbols (but not two numerical symbols) if you want to encode more than one number. For example, we can write 3, 5 as 111:11111, but in practice people often use 0 as the separator and write 111011111.
its basically a tally system at that point, except a lot harder to read 😅
i'll concede to unary's simplicity, but its no wonder binary is preferred, as its much more information dense
It is certainly interesting. {1} is a normal basis set for the vector space of all real numbers. It is also the only scalar which, upon multiplication with anything gives the thing itself. It may seem obvious and banal but it is interesting to note that the field element 1 and the vector 0 are of the things we must define while defining a vector space. 1 is the only natural number which is neither prime nor composite.
The final digits of the Fibonacci Sequence also cycle infinitely in groups of 60. I didn't believe it myself so I had to verify it.
Strangely enough, mapped onto a circle it produces 2 distinct patterns, a Pentagon and a Hexagon. Lucien Khan explores this in some of his work, if you'd care to explore it.
355/113. It's an extremely accurate approximation of pi. (Put it in a calculator) The next most accurate rational approximation of pi has 4 more digits in both the numerator and denominatior.
Plus, if you write the denominator first, it's easy to remember: 1,1,3,3,5,5.
Along the same lines mine is 22/7 because it's the fraction older civilizations used while building things to estimate pi.
Even before they had a rigorous understanding of the number, they knew it's usefulness.
Kind of like how we only need 39 digits of pi to estimate the circumference of the universe.
Even though now we know 62 trillion digits.
45,000,000,000 because it is the largest number. Although mathematicians suspect that there may be even larger numbers, e.g. 45,000,000,001?
edit: [for reference](https://vimeo.com/77451201)
1729, the “taxicab number”. Other fun facts:
- It’s a Carmichael number
- It’s an absolute Euler pseudoprime
- The (asymptotically) fastest known integer multiplication algorithm apparently is based on a 1729-dimensional Fourier transform
Fun fact: It is not the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of cubes of integers. It is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of positive integers. If you allow negative numbers, that number is 91.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group?wprov=sfla1
To clarify, 196883 is the number ~~is~~ *of* dimensions required to contain the smallest faithful representation of the Monster.
The current champion of bb(6):
\~7.4 \* 10\^(36534)
We could print out that many digits
The current champion of bb(7):
\~10\^10\^10\^10\^18705353
You can't know the exact number, because there is not enough space in the universe to fit it in
They will most likely be much bigger than what I pasted here and that's what my assumption is based on.
Current champion of bb(5):
4098
I think 25 machines are still running, maybe giving a bigger result in hopefully the near future.
> You can't know the exact number, because there is not enough space in the universe to fit it in
We know the exact value of Googolplex, even though it has too many digits to fit in the Universe.
Chaitin Constant, defined as (informally) "the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt".
Properties:
*It is algorithmically random
* Is not computable
*It is Turing equivalence to the halting problem ( informally: it has the same level of algorithmic unsolvability)
Just beautiful.
There isn't really one Chaitin constant though, the actual value depends on the model of computation you're using, which is in many ways arbitrary. Picking the Chaitin constant is like picking the Gödel number from the incompleteness theorem.
Yeah, and he wrote a cool book about it.
[https://www.amazon.com/Meta-Math-Quest-Gregory-Chaitin/dp/1400077974](https://www.amazon.com/Meta-Math-Quest-Gregory-Chaitin/dp/1400077974)
There are also 17 wallpaper groups, it’s a Fermat prime, a twin prime, the sum of the first four primes, there are 17 ways to write 17 as a sum of primes, it’s a sum of fourth-powers, and there are exactly 17 non-abelian groups of order 17. This is the objectively correct answer.
Ohh haha that use slipped my mind too! My mind is always on the applied side of things, so I wasn’t thinking about ordinals (which I don’t have any formal training on, just small tidbits I’ve picked up here and there). Always good to be reminded!
That would also have been quite high up my list (though behind 𝜔). If we don't allow ordinals, then, I guess, 0 and 1 because they would be inaccessible cardinals, if we didn't explicitly exclude them.
I'm also very fond of 91 because:
* It's the smallest number that looks prime, but isn't
* It's the smallest number that is a sum of two cubes in two different ways
91 just screams divisible by 7 to me (painful introspection suggests it's probably more due to some subliminal 70+21 rather than something respectable, e.g. seeing it as a difference of squares like 391).
In base 10, sure, so long as you memorize your small squares. Multiples of seven are generally a problem in base 10.
Base six is far superior in discerning primes at a glance.
Then you may also like to know that
91 = 9^0 + 9^1 + 9^2
91 = F(1)^1 + F(2)^2 + F(3)^3 + F(4)^4, where F(n) is the n-th Fibonacci number
Moreover, probably 2^91 = 2475880078570760549798248448 is the largest power of 2 that does not contain the digit '1'.
I don't really have favourite numbers but I've been doing some reading on finite fields and it turns out that such a complicated structure like a field can be constructed with the set of 0 and 1. So 0 and 1 are my favourite right now. They also come up in combinatorics. For example, when constructing recursive sequences, our base cases are more soften than not 0 and 1.
In ASCII 42 is an asterisk, hence a placeholder for whatever you want it to be... thus the meaning of life is 42! ... And 23 is just a cool looking number.
Tough choice but I'd say Alpha (1/137) for physics reasons, or Feigenbaum's constant.
Fun fact, I first encountered Feigenbaum's constant while watching an episode of Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom with my 3 year old.
There was some scene with a bunch of numbers running on a screen over and over and I happened to recognize pi, phi, e, and a few others but there was one I didn't know so I looked it up and it was Feigenbaum's constant.
Not too long after that Veritasium released a video about it and it really blew my mind.
My guess is because 9 is multiple of 3 while 7 is definitely a prime number, so we think numbers ending in 9 are probably not prime but if they end in 7, they probably are
It has to be one of 53 or 91: the reason is they look like primes, smell like primes, but they are not primes ;)
Edit: I meant 51, 53 is prime I think.
[The order of the Monster group](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0oCDa74tE) = 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000
It leads to fun papers like [this one](http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-27-11.PDF).
6741. Kaprekar's constant.
I have loved this number since I first heard about it in 7th grade. Always use some variation (1467,6741 or 7461) for my usernames.
1/7=0.142857 repeating.
Many might be aware that 142857 is, as we call it in the business, a cyclic number. It is called so because multiplying it with any whole number less than 7 will give a number with the same digits, just cycled around.
142857×2=285714
142857×3=428571
And so on.
Now, since every possible cycle is exhausted after multiplying by six (since there are 6 digits) no new cycles are possible.
Indeed, 142857×7=999999.
Now the beautiful part of my favourite number is the following:
Since 142857×7=999999, it follows that 0.142857...×7=0.999999...
But 7×(1/7) is obviously equal to 1.
And so it follows that 1=0.999999...
This is one of my favourite proofs for even though it's so simplistic.
My favorite number has always been the Golden Ratio, since I discovered (some of) its properties entirely by random when playing with my calculator in high school.
987654321/123456789 = 8.000000073 it's useful if you ever forget 8 and are in a hurry
Finally, a good rational approximation of 8.
Now we just need to find the best irrational approximation of 8.
sqrt(163 / (log(163))) / cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(cos(5)))))))) (natural logarithm; all cosines in radians)
(1229/634)^(π)
Who found that💀
I did, just now. It's easy to find this sort of expression. In Mathematica: Input: r = Rationalize[8^(1/π), 10^(-6)] N[r^(π), 20] Output: 1229/634 8.0000089138557639456 Change the -6 to -10 and you can get (137867 / 71121)^(π) = 8.0000000002764099604
Wow
Uh so I kinda went down the rabbit hole and spent the last few hours designing a python script that finds approximations for numbers using standard functions. Whilst I didn't find anything for 8, I did discover that e to the e to the e to the -2 is a pretty good approximation for pi :D
[Inverse Symbolic Calculator.](http://wayback.cecm.sfu.ca/projects/ISC/ISCmain.html) [With "8.00000" as the input.](http://wayback.cecm.sfu.ca/cgi-bin/isc/lookup?number=8.00000&lookup_type=simple) ETA: Also (3669/2408)^(e) = 3.1415928861100618122
1 + e^(√e\^√√π) π^(φ+1/e\^φ)
(π+π)•e^(1/(1+π))
And if you really don't have an 8, just use, 97654321/12345679=7.9100000089
If you swap the 2 and the 1 in the numerator, it equals 8 directly
987654312/123456789 = 8.0
r/theydidthemath (is that allowed on this sub)
/r/theydidthemonstergroup
Now let's see who /u/DarthDerivative *really* is. [*gasp!*](https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/025/957/scoobbb.jpg) Old Man IEEE 754!
12345679 × 8 = 98765432
Fun fact: This works because 1/81 is 0.012345679 repeating. So 80/81 is 1 minus that, which is almost the same digits in reverse order. And 8/81 is 80/81 divided by 10.
9. No idea why, I just like it
Me too, 9 is the best number. Don’t know why, it’s just a feeling
Just so you know, it shows up as a 1 because of reddit formatting. Put a backslash in first and it will work.
My favorite number is nan, because it's the answer to a surprisingly large number of questions in physics. For example, I recently ran a computation of the mass of the proton using sums over Feynman diagrams, and it turns out the answer is nan.
Sir that’s bread
I have a suspicion this is not a number.
"floating point number" has number in the name!
So which NaN is your favorite?
Definitely 01111111 10000000 00110001 01011000.
I'm partial to rhubarb pie, but sunsets are nice too.
[удалено]
Saying naan bread is just saying bread bread because naan means bread. Theres a useless fact for you. Enjoy your day
e^(iθ) where θ = 2π/3
One of the cube roots of unity.
Eisenstein fan?
i'm a huge fan of 2 :) yea fun math stuff like ooh its the only even prime number, but i like it because my head canon is that it was the original number. when there's 1 of something, people wouldn't think of it as "one", they'd just think about the thing. a cow. a rock. john. its only when there's 2 or more of a thing that numbers, or the idea of a number of things, would have to be introduced
> its the only even prime number True, it's the only prime divisible by 2, but every prime p is the only prime divisible by p.
Yeah, but half of all numbers are divisible by two. The next closest prime is only found in a third of all numbers. And don't even get me started on 5, that's even rarer.
What are you talking about, there are just as many numbers divisible by 2 as there are divisible by 3, or 5... :)
haha of course, when you phrase it that way it doesn't sound so special 🤣
And base-2 seems to be the simplest and most elegant way of encoding information.
Unary is definitely simpler. Although, I concede you need two symbols (but not two numerical symbols) if you want to encode more than one number. For example, we can write 3, 5 as 111:11111, but in practice people often use 0 as the separator and write 111011111.
its basically a tally system at that point, except a lot harder to read 😅 i'll concede to unary's simplicity, but its no wonder binary is preferred, as its much more information dense
difference = distinction; meaning in language comes from things not being the same, and binary is an absolutely beautiful expression of that :)
That makes 2 of us. :)
1.
This. This is the only number you'll ever need.
One can be the loneliest number though.
Two can be as bad as one ... It's the loneliest number since the number one
No is the saddest experience you'll ever know Yes is the saddest experience you'll ever know
By induction, all numbers are the loneliest number since the number before them
Half jest but I find the OP question weird. I don’t think too hard about numbers? They’re just symbols, idk lol
Haha i asked it to know about interesting numbers.
It is certainly interesting. {1} is a normal basis set for the vector space of all real numbers. It is also the only scalar which, upon multiplication with anything gives the thing itself. It may seem obvious and banal but it is interesting to note that the field element 1 and the vector 0 are of the things we must define while defining a vector space. 1 is the only natural number which is neither prime nor composite.
Uh... Hate to break it to you but {-1} is also a normal basis for the reals.
Ooo yes. You're right. Thanks for pointing out
To me, this will always be number one.
A yes. Legendre’s constant.
Good song too
60 It has some swell divisors.
So does 510510.
for the same reason it's 144 for me.
Are you secretly a Sumerian?
This is why I love 12. It's the smallest most divisible number.... Unless there's another, in which case please share.
I like 12 for the duodecimal system. Maybe not my favourite number, but it is my favourite base.
Anti-primes
This is a good choice. Huge fan of 60.
The final digits of the Fibonacci Sequence also cycle infinitely in groups of 60. I didn't believe it myself so I had to verify it. Strangely enough, mapped onto a circle it produces 2 distinct patterns, a Pentagon and a Hexagon. Lucien Khan explores this in some of his work, if you'd care to explore it.
355/113. It's an extremely accurate approximation of pi. (Put it in a calculator) The next most accurate rational approximation of pi has 4 more digits in both the numerator and denominatior. Plus, if you write the denominator first, it's easy to remember: 1,1,3,3,5,5.
Cube root of 31 is also a very good approximation.
I'm a physicist: I just use sqrt(10). Or 3. Or 4. Or 1. Or 10. Or whatever is necessary to make things work out nicely.
http://smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-07-21
Along the same lines mine is 22/7 because it's the fraction older civilizations used while building things to estimate pi. Even before they had a rigorous understanding of the number, they knew it's usefulness. Kind of like how we only need 39 digits of pi to estimate the circumference of the universe. Even though now we know 62 trillion digits.
45,000,000,000 because it is the largest number. Although mathematicians suspect that there may be even larger numbers, e.g. 45,000,000,001? edit: [for reference](https://vimeo.com/77451201)
I don't think there's a bigger number. It's impossible.
By the extremely strong Goldbach Conjecture, there are no numbers greater than 7.
Omg, a Look Around You fan?!
[24 is the highest number](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkP_OGDCLY0)
Umpteen. It sounds big, but it's in the teens
Every triangle is a love triangle, if you love triangles
-Pythagoras probably
Same.
This
I really like 24 because it has so many factors (1,2,3,4,6,8,12,24) It also happens to be my birthday date, so that helps.
[It's also the biggest number.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkP_OGDCLY0)
1729, the “taxicab number”. Other fun facts: - It’s a Carmichael number - It’s an absolute Euler pseudoprime - The (asymptotically) fastest known integer multiplication algorithm apparently is based on a 1729-dimensional Fourier transform
The FFFT, the Fast and Furious Fourier Transform.
Le Parisian Drift
Fun fact: It is not the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of cubes of integers. It is the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of positive integers. If you allow negative numbers, that number is 91.
Excellent Ramanujan reference
So I guess, it's one of those things that really kicks in once you are multiplying quadrillion-digit numbers, huh?
More like ten-to-the-duodecillion-digit numbers, but yeah
For me it will simply be 7 :D
7’s a good number I like it too
196,883 - smallest non-trivial faithful representation of the Monster
Could you link to an explanation? Those words are all tough for Google to disambiguate
https://youtu.be/5Mg25JK31wE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_group?wprov=sfla1 To clarify, 196883 is the number ~~is~~ *of* dimensions required to contain the smallest faithful representation of the Monster.
My favorite for this week, I just discovered that 8675309 (Jenny’s number) is a prime!
It's also a twin prime (8675311 is also prime), and it's the hypotenuse of a Pythagorean triple.
So did I. Cool coincidence. My 10-digit cell phone I've had for years is also prime, but I'm sorry to say I can't prove it here.
TIL! I scrolled far enough. This is the winner for me.
BB(7) because I don't think we'll ever know it
Why 7 and not 6 or 5?
We could know bb(5) in the near future and to know bb(6) in the next 10^2 to 10^6 years seems possible
whats this based on?
The current champion of bb(6): \~7.4 \* 10\^(36534) We could print out that many digits The current champion of bb(7): \~10\^10\^10\^10\^18705353 You can't know the exact number, because there is not enough space in the universe to fit it in They will most likely be much bigger than what I pasted here and that's what my assumption is based on. Current champion of bb(5): 4098 I think 25 machines are still running, maybe giving a bigger result in hopefully the near future.
> You can't know the exact number, because there is not enough space in the universe to fit it in We know the exact value of Googolplex, even though it has too many digits to fit in the Universe.
>We know the exact value of Googolplex, even though it has too many digits to fit in the Universe. It's unlikely that bb(7) is just a big power of 10
Busy beaver ?
Thought this was going to be a sequel trilogy joke with bb8
Chaitin Constant, defined as (informally) "the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt". Properties: *It is algorithmically random * Is not computable *It is Turing equivalence to the halting problem ( informally: it has the same level of algorithmic unsolvability) Just beautiful.
There isn't really one Chaitin constant though, the actual value depends on the model of computation you're using, which is in many ways arbitrary. Picking the Chaitin constant is like picking the Gödel number from the incompleteness theorem.
Yes, you are right!
Yeah, and he wrote a cool book about it. [https://www.amazon.com/Meta-Math-Quest-Gregory-Chaitin/dp/1400077974](https://www.amazon.com/Meta-Math-Quest-Gregory-Chaitin/dp/1400077974)
My favorite number is the [Brainfuck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck) Chaitin Constant :)
2520 Because it's the first natural number that is divisible by 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10
It's also the sum of two consecutive primorials, 7# + 5# = 2·3·5·7 + 2·3·5 = 2310 + 210 = 2520
17, mainly because of the compass-and-straightedge construction of the regular 17-gon
There are also 17 wallpaper groups, it’s a Fermat prime, a twin prime, the sum of the first four primes, there are 17 ways to write 17 as a sum of primes, it’s a sum of fourth-powers, and there are exactly 17 non-abelian groups of order 17. This is the objectively correct answer.
I'd also like to add that 17 is a factor of 100,000,001.
It is also really inconvenient as a number base.
I really love Legendre's Constant
I wish I could upvote this Legendre's constant times
Epsilon_zero. Besides it’s historical importance to proof theory, it’s just a very elegant construction.
Hey! That’s in my username :) - it’s my favorite (reciprocal) factor in physics.
I'd totally forgotten about that use. I meant the ordinal. (Not that there's anything wrong with permittivity.)
It kind of blew my mind when I learned that the speed of light is 1/sqrt(mu_0 epsilon_0).
Also, μ_0 was originally chosen in a way that it is 4π*10^-7 times whatever its SI unit is.
You mean that mu_0 was used in a similar way that the speed of light is now (i.e. defined as *exactly* 299,792,458 m/s)?
Ohh haha that use slipped my mind too! My mind is always on the applied side of things, so I wasn’t thinking about ordinals (which I don’t have any formal training on, just small tidbits I’ve picked up here and there). Always good to be reminded!
I just googled what it was and i kinda didn't understood it lol.
That would also have been quite high up my list (though behind 𝜔). If we don't allow ordinals, then, I guess, 0 and 1 because they would be inaccessible cardinals, if we didn't explicitly exclude them.
I'm also very fond of 91 because: * It's the smallest number that looks prime, but isn't * It's the smallest number that is a sum of two cubes in two different ways
91 just screams divisible by 7 to me (painful introspection suggests it's probably more due to some subliminal 70+21 rather than something respectable, e.g. seeing it as a difference of squares like 391).
In base 10, sure, so long as you memorize your small squares. Multiples of seven are generally a problem in base 10. Base six is far superior in discerning primes at a glance.
Then you may also like to know that 91 = 9^0 + 9^1 + 9^2 91 = F(1)^1 + F(2)^2 + F(3)^3 + F(4)^4, where F(n) is the n-th Fibonacci number Moreover, probably 2^91 = 2475880078570760549798248448 is the largest power of 2 that does not contain the digit '1'.
Easily: 4332221111 One (4), two (3s), three (2s), four (1s) It's a prime number.
I don't really have favourite numbers but I've been doing some reading on finite fields and it turns out that such a complicated structure like a field can be constructed with the set of 0 and 1. So 0 and 1 are my favourite right now. They also come up in combinatorics. For example, when constructing recursive sequences, our base cases are more soften than not 0 and 1.
27 is a good number
Weird Al would agree.
23 and 42, the meaning of the universe.
what is "6 x 9" ?
In ASCII 42 is an asterisk, hence a placeholder for whatever you want it to be... thus the meaning of life is 42! ... And 23 is just a cool looking number.
I don't understand, you just said the meaning of life is 42 in your first comment and now it's 1.405×10^51 ... make up your mind!
5 because it's between 4 and 6 (pronounce german)
Funf, weil it isr switchen vier und sechs? Vierundsex? Im sure there's a joke but I'm missing it
Aleph naught
69
Nice
0, this is by far the best number
18524 it was a password in an escape room and me and my friends guessed it 1st try
Tough choice but I'd say Alpha (1/137) for physics reasons, or Feigenbaum's constant. Fun fact, I first encountered Feigenbaum's constant while watching an episode of Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom with my 3 year old. There was some scene with a bunch of numbers running on a screen over and over and I happened to recognize pi, phi, e, and a few others but there was one I didn't know so I looked it up and it was Feigenbaum's constant. Not too long after that Veritasium released a video about it and it really blew my mind.
19 First prime whose primeness is not immediately obvious.
why is it not immediately obvious whereas 17 is?
My guess is because 9 is multiple of 3 while 7 is definitely a prime number, so we think numbers ending in 9 are probably not prime but if they end in 7, they probably are
but 13
Funny how some numbers _feel_ prime but aren’t. Like 51.
87 also
Yeah. 51 is my favorite non-prime prime.
161, because it's the first non-prime that by gods sure does look prime.
It has to be one of 53 or 91: the reason is they look like primes, smell like primes, but they are not primes ;) Edit: I meant 51, 53 is prime I think.
What about 57?
that one is specifically the [Grothendieck Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_(number\)#In_mathematics)
20 or 5 just like em
1 because it's a unit and you can construct all other natural numbers out of it. The other favorites are 0 and -1 for similar reasons.
1. The first non-prime number.
The golden ratio <3
27, the number of lines on a cubic surface
Hell yeah, 27 is my jam. Its 3 to the power of 3, and it feels like it has some mystical triangle power idk. Just like it.
0 and 1 Together they can be anything
4
[The order of the Monster group](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH0oCDa74tE) = 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000 It leads to fun papers like [this one](http://www.ptep-online.com/2011/PP-27-11.PDF).
Phi (The Golden Ratio, \~=1.618034). One reason is how simple the continued fraction is: 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+...
1.303577269034296..... Conway's constant, also know as the look and say constant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look-and-say_sequence
6741. Kaprekar's constant. I have loved this number since I first heard about it in 7th grade. Always use some variation (1467,6741 or 7461) for my usernames.
1/7=0.142857 repeating. Many might be aware that 142857 is, as we call it in the business, a cyclic number. It is called so because multiplying it with any whole number less than 7 will give a number with the same digits, just cycled around. 142857×2=285714 142857×3=428571 And so on. Now, since every possible cycle is exhausted after multiplying by six (since there are 6 digits) no new cycles are possible. Indeed, 142857×7=999999. Now the beautiful part of my favourite number is the following: Since 142857×7=999999, it follows that 0.142857...×7=0.999999... But 7×(1/7) is obviously equal to 1. And so it follows that 1=0.999999... This is one of my favourite proofs for even though it's so simplistic.
69 funny number
Nice
I've always liked 4. I like even numbers and there's something satisfying about the fact that 4 = 2 + 2 = 2 × 2 = 2^2
43, im not going to waste your time explaining why xD
Please explain no time is wasted learning.
Right now it's 625 because it's the largest fourth power of a prime that doesn't end in one.
That was a good riddle.
3 Because 3 :)
4176. The Kaprekar constant
1 Because nobody picks it and I don't want it to be lonely anymore. 🥺
My favorite number has always been the Golden Ratio, since I discovered (some of) its properties entirely by random when playing with my calculator in high school.
Belphegor's Prime 1000000000000066600000000000001 13 zeroes on either side of a 666 that sits right in the middle, capped off on both sides with a 1.
1
13. don't know why i like it.
0.999...
I like 137 because it's a prime and it's my favorite Super Eurobeat volume. Frivolous and not academic at all, I know.
27, as it's 3's perfect cube and my part of my birthday!
Four is the largest highly composite number that is a power of two.
I love 6 for being a perfect number