Comments on: Q&A: Numerous Numbers http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/ The Math Factor Podcast Site Fri, 08 Aug 2014 12:52:06 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.25 By: rmjarvis http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-375 Sat, 20 Sep 2008 21:48:34 +0000 http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/06/qa-numerous-numbers/#comment-375 ONE 8523542 SEVEN

I suspect I used a slightly different strategy than most. Rather than googling 9 digit numbers, I googled:

“smallest number with no google hits”

and then clicked around to see what other people had already found. No sense duplicating effort, eh?

Credit where credit is due:

http://forums.topcoder.com/?module=Thread&threadID=623471&start=0&mc=37#1021543

Apparently, back in 2003, the lowest known was 13,965,321, which now has 70 hits (oops 71 as soon as Google scans this page again), so I wonder how long this result will last.

]]> By: John Dalbec http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-374 Fri, 19 Sep 2008 02:07:45 +0000 http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/06/qa-numerous-numbers/#comment-374 If you add enough leading zeroes, you can get 0 search results for almost any number. I guess that’s cheating, though.

]]> By: DWC http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-369 Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:57:08 +0000 http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/06/qa-numerous-numbers/#comment-369 Not the smallest number by far but the smallest number using the fibonacci sequence’s consecutive terms strung together as a number.

one12358132134558914423337761098715972584418167651094six

Thought it was interesting how large it actually was.

]]> By: strauss http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-307 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:03:06 +0000 http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/06/qa-numerous-numbers/#comment-307 Things have really gotten crowded in just the last year. All of the numbers in the comments above now get at least a couple of hits and in some cases a great many.

It looks like the demand for numbers on the internet (for auctions, for indexing photos, etc) is running very high.

And some folks are really hogging up numbers, listing all the primes and other wasteful practices.

This will just get worse as time goes by!!

I’d love to see a systematic search done. For the moment, this is what I came up with. I’ll use something like Ken’s trick above to keep google at bay.

Two3001293Eight

Two0331125Six

]]> By: isenham http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-96 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:35:23 +0000 http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/06/qa-numerous-numbers/#comment-96 93139519

Here is another entry. I have too much free time this morning.

SCF

]]> By: isenham http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-95 Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:32:52 +0000 http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/06/qa-numerous-numbers/#comment-95 94897410

Googling the above number gave zero results. So a new low has been set (temporarily).

SCF

]]> By: kraDen http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/qa-numerous-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:29:48 +0000 http://mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/06/06/qa-numerous-numbers/#comment-88 Hi,
I’ve found an 8 digit number that does not appear on the internet
So as not to disqualify it by listing it I will list its factorization
2x2x1153x9907
Cheers
Ken

]]>