You can't google 9999999..99999999999999999999999 • Hacker News Board

Re: You can't google 9999999..99999999999999999999999

#81

Post by JacobAldridge » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 4:26 PM UTC

martinkallstrom wrote: post #56

I think this question is cool to think about and try to answer: What is the lowest integer that doesn't have any hits on google? Is there any reasoning that can help estimating the approximate magnitude it should be?

You could look at the hits returned on increasing numbers (eg, 1111 v 11111). A quick glance shows they seem to reduce towards zero by the time you reach 12 digits.

From there, it's probably trial and error - start with 12 1's in a row and fiddle with them. Even try deleting 2 random digits to see what happens (from 12 ->10 as anything with 11 numbers returns a UPS Package Tracking Link / Ad for me). Lowest I had is 111232111222 - perhaps someone should write a Wikipedia page on it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox

Re: You can't google 9999999..99999999999999999999999

#82

Post by martinkallstrom » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 4:31 PM UTC

JacobAldridge wrote: post #81

martinkallstrom wrote: post #56

I think this question is cool to think about and try to answer: What is the lowest integer that doesn't have any hits on google? Is there any reasoning that can help estimating the approximate magnitude it should be?

You could look at the hits returned on increasing numbers (eg, 1111 v 11111). A quick glance shows they seem to reduce towards zero by the time you reach 12 digits. From there, it's probably trial and error - start with 12 1's in a row and fiddle with them. Even try deleting 2 random digits to see what happens (from 12 ->10 as anything with 11 numbers returns a UPS Package Tracking Link / Ad for me). Lowest I had is…

The interesting number paradox was great, didn't know about it. Almost the same contradiction exists in my problem statement, as someone mentioned below. Would you be able to identify the lowest non-indexed number you probably couldn't keep it from being published on the web.

Re: You can't google 9999999..99999999999999999999999

#83

Post by mattdeboard » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 9:24 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #74

mattdeboard wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridiculous in what way? Ridiculously good compared to alternatives, or ridiculously complex or? Asking out of pure ignorance here.

So there are numbers called pentagonal numbers. You may be familiar with the triangular numbers: 0 1 3 6 10 15 ..., with the formula n(n+1)/2, and the square numbers: 0 1 4 9 16 ..., with the formula n^2. In general, the k-gonal numbers begin with "0 1 k", and they are defined by a quadratic formula. Incidentally, here's a fun little trick. If you have a sequence defined as the values of a polynomial at consecutive i…

Thanks for the in-depth answer. This actually reminds me of Chebyshev polynomials, which I was obsessed with in a very simple way last spring. But I'm not advanced enough in maths to draw any concrete connection.

Re: You can't google 9999999..99999999999999999999999

#84

Post by fbstj » Mon, Sep 05, 2011, 12:44 PM UTC

Almaviva wrote: post #70

martinkallstrom wrote: post #56

I think this question is cool to think about and try to answer: What is the lowest integer that doesn't have any hits on google? Is there any reasoning that can help estimating the approximate magnitude it should be?

What's the lowest integer that will never have any hits on Google? It must exist by induction, I think.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 :p