TOP FIVE NUMBERS

[odellthurman]

The top five numbers, in my opinion.

1) One

2) Two

3) Three

4) Four

5) Five

[flo]

What are the worst five numbers then?

[Cleveland Guy]

[ QUOTE ]
The top five numbers, in my opinion.

1) One

2) Two

3) Three

4) Four

5) Five

[/ QUOTE ]


Your opinion sucks.

I'd have to think that numbers 69, 420, 23 would all have to be in the top 5.

[MonkeeMan]

Heh heh, heh heh.

Numbers suck.
Yea, there's like too many of them.

Heh heh, heh heh.

[odellthurman]

After further consideration, I think the fourth top number is five, and the fifth top number is four. But I leave open the possibility that the fifth top number may actually be six, pushing four down to sixth. One is first, and two is second, but three may occasionally slip to fourth, pushing five to third.

[MonkeeMan]

Why no imaginary numbers???

[Saddlepoint]

Nominees, no order...

e
1
0
10
Pi
Phi
Radical 2
i (kind of)

Yes, I get that it's a joke. I'd still like to hear a mathematician take a crack at this. And, truly, what is the use of mathematical study if it can't be used to answer wholly irrelevant, entirely subjective questions that don't mean anything?

[PygmyHero]

Saddlepoint, since you choose to take this somewhat seriously...

Check out Just Six Numbers, by Martin Rees.

From an Amazon book review:

"So what are these six fundamental numbers? The first is a ratio of the strength of the electrical forces that hold atoms together divided by the force of gravity between them. It is very large, about 1036, and were it a few zeros shorter, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist and there would be no time for biological evolution. The second number is also a ratio and is the proportion of energy that is released when hydrogen fuses into helium. This number is 0.007, and if it were 0.006 or 0.008 we could not exist. The third number, also a ratio, relates the actual density of matter in the universe to a 'critical' density. At first sight this number appears to be about 0.4. If this ratio were too high the universe would have collapsed long ago: if too low, galaxies or stars would not have formed. The fourth number, only recently discovered, is a cosmic 'antigravity' and appears to control the expansion of the universe even though it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billion light years. The fifth number is the ratio of the energy required to break apart a galaxy compared to its 'rest mass energy' and is about 10-5. If this ratio were smaller the universe would be inert and structureless: if much larger the universe would be so violent that no stars or sun systems could survive. The sixth number, surprisingly, is the number of spatial dimensions in our world (3). Life could not exist if this was 2 or 4. In this book Sir Martin discusses each of the above and develops reasons for the limits that he gives. He postulates that perhaps there are some connections between these numbers but states that at the moment we cannot predict any one of them from the values of the others. Perhaps a 'theory of everything' will eventually yield a formula that interrelates them."

Haven't read it myself, if you do, let me know how what you thought. And by the way, I liked your list.

[Saddlepoint]

That's fascinating actually.

And thanks. Yeah, I really need to develop a sense of humor.

[Bataglin]

I actually started to write a long respond, but didn't bother to finish it. I'll just take the short version:

SO WHAT?