Must have broadband! ;)

Special whoe numbersl
 

Kees: a reminder from post 277

[QUOTE=nibble4bits]LOL Even with my silly sequences I gave hints. Come on, this isn't like a test - if it is then you're a sadist. ;)
If it takes more then a few days for anyone to post then you may have to give them some hints. I think I know what the answer is but I have to verify it. It still could be wrong because I've had to verify several answers.[/QUOTE]
Reminder post 277
Kees: this is like Silvermans comment on IQ. You have to answer whats on the mind of the compiler. Any other answer is wrong in your eyes I have given several but they dont count with you!
And why the delay
Get on with it man/ woman its not an atomic secret worthy of the NP!!!.
Mally :coffee:

A more obvious clue
 

let us say that A=1, B=2 etc

replace by letters and look again...

Special whole numbers
 

:no:
The combination of letters I am getting are nonsensical!

Please check your number given as 16924182418.
For instance Attitude added up =100, bullshit = 103
Mally :coffee:

Let me give it away
 

16924182418:

16=P
9 = i
24=x
18=r
24=x
18=r

which gives pi x r x r

Special whole numbers
 

:bow: Thanks Kees. Now that makes sense.
I leave it to you to give another number but one more 'mathematical'
Mally :coffee:

[QUOTE=mfgoode] I leave it to you to give another number [/QUOTE]

Its not quite polite, but since Kees hasn't responed for a day and a half, perhaps you'd do us a favour, Mally, and pose a new number.

Actually we have had two numbers on the go simultaneously before, and it seemed to work. Given that Kees's numbers are somewhere between fiendish and impossible it might be a good idea!

Richard

Special whole numbers
 

:rolleyes:
Thank you for the invite, Richard.
I’m glad you noticed that this thread has been dragging its feet since 22nd. Feb.
It’s over a month now that it has been thrown open again.
IMHO. A Thread and its posters should aim to learn, teach, instruct and disseminate knowledge to others, who may not be aware of such, or have not been accessible to it, for some rhyme or reason.
I am still reeling under the remarkable insight, you gave of technetium At. No. 43, the first element not found in Nature. This definitely added to my store of mystical numbers. And it came from such an unexpected source like Chemistry, which is not particularly my favourite subject, though I excelled in it.
So enough of IQ tests and let’s get on with Kroneckers dictum “God made the integers;
The rest was made by Man.”
I give below a simple number which is distinguished by a mathematical property, also as a well known number in its mystical significance!
The Number is
786
Mally

Wikipedia is one nasty beast
 

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/786_%28number%29[/url]

could not help myself, but I agree that in this thread there is a problem.
Either we choose numbers which have beautiful properties, but are too easily googled or wikied, or we go for my fiendish lot, which puts the thread in a month long deadlock because the truth of the number is totally unclear.

It would be wonderful to find something in between, but that is really difficult.
In general I google my challenges, just to be sure.

Here is another fiendish one: 4229

A clue [spoiler] 999999 [/spoiler]

[QUOTE=mfgoode]I am still reeling under the remarkable insight, you gave of technetium At. No. 43, the first element not found in Nature. This definitely added to my store of mystical numbers. And it came from such an unexpected source like Chemistry, which is not particularly my favourite subject, though I excelled in it.[/QUOTE]
As I explained in some detail, and the information incorporated in my explanation is very easily checked from widely available public resources, technetium *is* found in Nature. Did you not see my postings?

The half-life of the longest lived isotope of Tc is [b]much[/b] longer than that of the free neutron, arguably the first element --- if you start counting at zero as many mathematicians and computer scientists do.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman]The half-life of the longest lived isotope of Tc is [b]much[/b] longer than that of the free neutron, arguably the first element --- if you start counting at zero as many mathematicians and computer scientists do.[/QUOTE]But, chemistry and physics majors don't.:no: A naked neutron does not form what one would typically think of as chemical compounds. It falls in the same class of "particle" as the proton and electron. If one would desire to start counting at nul, why not in the negative, and consider the electron the first element? :popcorn: