20060102, 06:05  #1 
Bemusing Prompter
"Danny"
Dec 2002
California
4474_{8} Posts 
smallest number used in a mathematical proof?
We know that the largest number used in any serious proof is Graham's number.
But what about the smallest number used in a mathematical proof (excluding zero and infinitesimals)? I know that there's physicsrelated Planck units, but I'm sure there's numbers much smaller. 
20060102, 06:31  #2 
Jun 2003
3053_{8} Posts 
Possibly some paper involving the ABC conjecture would be the answer, in my opinion.
Citrix 
20060102, 08:55  #3  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
1E0C_{16} Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by cheesehead on 20060102 at 08:57 

20060102, 10:32  #4 
Cranksta Rap Ayatollah
Jul 2003
1201_{8} Posts 
I'm guessing that it's some nonstandard analysis proof that uses an infinitesimal
"infinitesimal" isn't very easy to type after a few glasses of wine. 
20060102, 10:56  #5 
"Nancy"
Aug 2002
Alexandria
2,467 Posts 
I don't think there's a good answer to this question. You can always recast equations so that constants that appear in it are smaller or larger. Besides, what exactly qualifies as a constant in this context? Are the elements of a series that tends to zero constants?
Alex 
20060102, 14:17  #6 
Jun 2005
Near Beetlegeuse
184_{16} Posts 
This GreenHodge is not authoratitive, just a bloke with a blog, but he lists some numbers he thinks are interesting. After the Planck length, 1.6160*10^{35) the next smallest number he lists is 0.412454... which he calls the ThueMorse constant. So maybe there aren't that many interesting small numbers.

20060102, 15:34  #7  
Jun 2005
2×191 Posts 
Quote:
It's an interesting question, but I'm afraid I can't offer any other small constants. Drew 

20060102, 17:40  #8  
Bamboozled!
"πΊππ·π·π"
May 2003
Down not across
3·3,529 Posts 
Quote:
Another and much smaller quantity is the ratio of the strengths of the gravitational and lectromagnetic interactions. Whether physical constants have much to do with the question as originally asked is another question entirely. Paul 

20060104, 02:33  #9 
Nov 2005
182_{10} Posts 
What about the difference between neutrons and protons in weight, even taking account of neutrinos and electrons. Or on a similar note, what about the anticipated atomic mass and it's actual value for specific elements/isotopes? For example, helium atoms are actually a little lighter then 3(He I) or 4(He II) times the mass of a hydrogen atom.
What about the probability of a broken cup suddenly reassembling itself in a tornado? :) 
20060104, 17:18  #10 
Bronze Medalist
Jan 2004
Mumbai,India
2^{2}×3^{3}×19 Posts 
smallest number in a mathematical proof?
Would 459.67 qualify ? Mally 
20060104, 22:20  #11  
"Richard B. Woods"
Aug 2002
Wisconsin USA
2^{2}·3·641 Posts 
Quote:


Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Fermat number F6=18446744073709551617 is a composite number. Proof.  literka  Factoring  5  20120130 12:28 
Could a Distributed Computing approach help find the smallest Brier number?  jasong  Math  5  20070529 13:30 
proof of sierpinski number  thommy  Prime Sierpinski Project  1  20060527 06:30 
Can you find the smallest number?  Fusion_power  Puzzles  8  20031118 19:36 
Smallest untested number?  wirthi  Math  10  20031005 13:02 