Wells' Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Wells' "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers," specifically comparing different editions of the book and exploring the concept of "uninteresting" numbers. Participants share their findings and thoughts on the definitions and properties of interesting versus uninteresting numbers, touching on theoretical implications and paradoxes in set theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants are interested in comparing the 1986/1987 editions of Wells' book with the 1997 version they possess.
  • One participant suggests that the 2020 edition may be more interesting than the earlier versions.
  • Another participant shares a list of "boring numbers" from the original edition, noting discrepancies with the revised edition.
  • Several participants reference the old joke about the impossibility of listing the first uninteresting number, questioning its validity as a proof.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of defining a set of interesting positive integers, with references to Russell's paradox and the challenges it presents to set theory.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether "being interesting" is a well-defined property of integers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the editions of Wells' book and the nature of interesting versus uninteresting numbers. There is no consensus on the validity of the joke regarding uninteresting numbers or the implications of set theory related to this concept.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in defining "interesting" and "uninteresting" numbers, as well as the potential paradoxes that arise from attempting to categorize them.

CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
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? o:)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
CRGreathouse said:
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.

:biggrin:
 
Hmm, not seen one of those. :wink:
 


CRGreathouse said:
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? o:)

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!
 


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


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

:smile:
 


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

Actually, IS that a sound proof?
 


Animastryfe said:
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.
 
  • #10


Boring_Nos said:
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!

Boring_Nos said:
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.
 
  • #11


Jarle said:
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...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Graduate About a natural extension of Collatz conjecture
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Final Grades for Linear Algebra Course
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Can You Decode This List of Numbers into a Message?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
15K
Undergrad Godel Escher Bach: Interesting number sequence
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Comp Sci Counting Numbers in Curly Braces in Fortran?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Undergrad Equation for number placement in Sudoku-like grid
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K
Studying Skipping Chapters in Stewart’s Calculus? (Pearson's Edexcel IAL Background)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Comp Sci Trapezoidal rule for a set of data
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Chem undergrad realizes interests lie in physics; do I have any hope?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Java Why Does This Java Code Only Store One Answer in an Array?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K