[QUOTE=mfgoode]Unless the number has a mathematical property its not worth considering IMO in this thread.[/quote]You're entitled to your opinion, Mally, but this thread's starter, Xyzzy, specified only "List a whole number... The next poster has to say what makes that whole number special," which doesn't limit the reason for specialness. Indeed, Xyzzy demonstrated with his own first example "7 wonders of the ancient world" that he did not intend that any mathematical property be required as the reason for specialness.

[quote]A number like Lara's record breaking spell is not worth bothering and a waste of precious time. These numbers are grass today and hay tomorrow only meant for the kiln or animal feed.[/QUOTE]Perhaps you could start another thread "Special-for-purely-mathematical-reasons numbers" and define "special", "purely", "mathematical", and "number" to limit them to what you have in mind. :-)

Special whole numbers
 

[QUOTE=cheesehead]
Perhaps you could start another thread "Special-for-purely-mathematical-reasons numbers" and define "special", "purely", "mathematical", and "number" to limit them to what you have in mind. :-)[/QUOTE]
:redface: Cheesehead I stand corrected. I tried to emphasize that the numbers given should be of general interest like Xyzzy 's example 'The seven wonders of the world' is a good way to remembering 7, if, in a primitive world.
Similarly Newton's birthday is interesting and coincides with Christmas day and hence has an additional qualification for it to be interesting. :rolleyes:

I have spent a lot of time trying to find a correlation of the numbers given and have taken it seriously by checking on the net and my reference books. To quote a statistic is not being fair IMHO. For me whats good for the goose is good for the gander, fair for one is fair for all. Thats why I asked for a hint whether a number is historical, mathematical or statistical. :question:

I play by the rules and don't want to stand out like a sore thumb or stick my neck out by framing a new thread with 'my rules',as I am willing to conform to the Thread that is existing. Also if it is difficult, to just say so, as many have done

In the interests of all I would prefer pollsters not pranksters. :squash:
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE]I have spent a lot of time trying to find a correlation of the numbers given and have taken it seriously by checking on the net and my reference books. To quote a statistic is not being fair IMHO.

...

In the interests of all I would prefer pollsters not pranksters.[/QUOTE]

Apologies, Mally, if my 11,187 caused you fruitless searching. That certainly wasn't my intention.

Perhaps interestingly, plugging 11,187 into google produced nothing, but plugging it into bbc.co.uk got Lara straightaway. So I learned something from this. I hope your research too was not totally without interest.


Richard

I apologise.

Maybe 40,075 is too vague then. It's the equatorial circumference of the earth in km. I remembered being told at school (rightly or wrongly) that the metre was approx. 1/40,000,000 of the circumference of the earth, so I looked up the 'correct' value. (Doesn't it depend on the length of the 'ruler', like the coastline of Britain?)

the great circle used to measure the earth's circumference to define the meter was a meridian passing through Paris. I think the polar circumference of the earth is smaller than the equatorial circumference, but I don't know if they are as much as 75 kms different

Special whole numbers
 

:sad: Flatlander and Richard Cameron, you don't have to apologise to me as actually, and in retrospect both your entries have their merits.
Lara's record and the Km are both important in the sense that they do contribute to knowledge.
What I was after is that a hint should be given as to what the number pertains too. If you say its non mathematical then accordingly I go after a hunt to find it elsewhere or leave it well alone and leave it to someone else to plug in the loop hole.
The Km and metre is more accurate than stated on the Earths circumference as a fractional part it. The polar circumference is less than the equatorial as the earth bulges at the equator due to its early formation and of course centrifugal force of its rotation. As for me 25 000 miles is good enough for me

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre[/url]

As for Lara's record in ODI's I don't appreciate it much as one day cricket has lost the glamour of the traditional 5 day tests. It is much like a slugging match for every ball that's bowled. Where are the stylish batsman today like Don Bradman, Len Hutton etc to whom a defensive stroke to a dangerous ball was as much a part of cricket as hitting a six. It can be much like baseball
where you either score or miss.
Instead of base ball the rest of the world has substituted it for one day matches.
These are off hand comments of mine so please don't analyse it with a fine tooth comb. It will be a waste of precious time.
Mally :coffee:

Special Whole numbers
 

Hey I think its my turn once again.

265.
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode]Hey I think its my turn once again.

265.
Mally :coffee:[/QUOTE]

265=!6 (subfactorial)

1605

Mally :shock:

Lara's record is not in ODIs but in Tests.

Special Whole numbers
 

[QUOTE=fetofs]265=!6 (subfactorial)

1605[/QUOTE]

1605: = 7 octs.
What does that signify fetofs?

Garo: you are right Garo. My mistake!
Mally :coffee:

Special Whole numbers
 

:smile: It's my turn again so here goes:
14833 (math)
Mally :coffee: