Wells' Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers

[CRGreathouse]

Wells' "Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers"

Does anyone have a copy of Wells' "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" 1986 or 1987 edition? I'm curious about how they compare to the revised (1997) version I have.

On a lark, I decided to put together a list of "uninteresting" numbers. I started when I realized I'd seen a number of web pages devoted to the opposite, as well as the book mentioned above. My idea was simple: list whole numbers that did not appear on any of the lists I had, starting from the smallest. In the revised edition, this starts 54, 57, 58, 67, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 92, ... How does this compare to the original?

 

[DaveC426913]

Does anyone have a copy of Wells' "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" 1986 or 1987 edition? I'm curious about how they compare to the revised (1997) version I have.

Actually, the 1986,1987 and 1997 editions are not very interesting. Try Try the 2020.172i edition.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Hmm, not seen one of those.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I put the page up on my website -- check it out!
http://math.crg4.com/uninteresting.html

Comments are welcome.

 

[Boring_Nos]

Does anyone have a copy of Wells' "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" 1986 or 1987 edition? I'm curious about how they compare to the revised (1997) version I have.

On a lark, I decided to put together a list of "uninteresting" numbers. I started when I realized I'd seen a number of web pages devoted to the opposite, as well as the book mentioned above. My idea was simple: list whole numbers that did not appear on any of the lists I had, starting from the smallest. In the revised edition, this starts 54, 57, 58, 67, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 92, ... How does this compare to the original?

Resurecting an old post...

The original has the following 'boring numbers'
43, 51, 54, 57 (although 57.296…° 1 rad does appear), 58, 62, 67, 68, 74, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 106, 107, 109, 110, …

Edited to add: Well... I should of looked at your link first, clearly you have found a copy of the first edition in this time. Also I missed '39' which is simultaneously interesting and un-interesting.
An engineers should have paid more attention to detail!

 

[Office_Shredder]

How did nobody post anything about the old joke that you can't list the first uninteresting number?

 

[DaveC426913]

How did nobody post anything about the old joke that you can't list the first uninteresting number?

:rofl:

 

[Animastryfe]

How did nobody post anything about the old joke that you can't list the first uninteresting number?

Actually, IS that a sound proof?

 

[disregardthat]

Actually, IS that a sound proof?

I don't think it is legal to create the set of interesting positive integers. It is sort of a variation of russels paradox. I think, but I am not sure, that it breaks with a certain principle/axiom in set theory.

It breaks down when you request a list of uninteresting numbers. That itself affects the status of 'being interesting' for each integer (since the least one is interesting), so also a common-sense view of the situation makes it difficult to justify such a request.

Arguably, we could all accept that being interesting is not a well-defined property of integers.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Resurecting an old post...

The original has the following 'boring numbers'
43, 51, 54, 57 (although 57.296…° 1 rad does appear), 58, 62, 67, 68, 74, 75, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 92, 93, 95, 106, 107, 109, 110, …

Thank you!

Well... I should of looked at your link first, clearly you have found a copy of the first edition in this time. Also I missed '39' which is simultaneously interesting and un-interesting.
An engineers should have paid more attention to detail!

I was only able to find an excerpt, so the list is new to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is sort of a variation of russels paradox. I think, but I am not sure, that it breaks with a certain principle/axiom in set theory.

Annnnnnd of course, there's an http://xkcd.com/468/" about that...