Send to a Friend

ETpro's avatar

What is the smallest integer you can think of that is not interesting?

Asked by ETpro (34605points) March 23rd, 2010

Most small integers are interesting for some reason. Zero is interesting because any number multiplied it = 0. 1 is interesting because any number multiplied by it is that number itself. 2 is interesting because it is the smallest even number. 3 is the smallest number that defines a 2-dimensional shape—the triangle. 4 is the first composite number. 5 is (among many interesting things) the number of regular polyhedra in three dimensions. 6 is very interesting because it is 3 factorial, (3 x 2 x 1) and also is (3 + 2 + 1). You get the drift. Most small integers are interesting for one or more reasons.

But surely at some point, we hit an integer that isn’t a square of another, isn’t interesting in any particular way. Now that in itself develops an interesting paradox, because such a number is VERY interesting in that it is the smallest number that isn’t interesting for any other reason. But setting that paradox aside, what number would you say deserves the title of smallest uninteresting integer?

For hints, you could consult The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers by David Wells and Les Nombres Remarquables by François Le Lionnais. But surely someone here can point out why their conclusions are off base, and the lowest integer they each site is actually quite interesting on its own merits, and thus doesn’t need the cover of the aforementioned paradox.

Asking here is the best way I know to shoot down small numbers one by one till we reach some number none of us find interesting except in that it does fit our “Interesting for being uninteresting” paradox.

Using Fluther

or

Using Email

Separate multiple emails with commas.
We’ll only use these emails for this message.