smallest number used in a mathematical proof?

ixfd64 · 2006-01-02, 06:05

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 physics-related Planck units, but I'm sure there's numbers much smaller.

Citrix · 2006-01-02, 06:31

Possibly some paper involving the ABC conjecture would be the answer, in my opinion.

Citrix

cheesehead · 2006-01-02, 08:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by ixfd64

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 physics-related Planck units, but I'm sure there's numbers much smaller.

The reciprocal of Graham's number ought to be a good candidate for the honor.

Orgasmic Troll · 2006-01-02, 10:32

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.

akruppa · 2006-01-02, 10:56

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

Numbers · 2006-01-02, 14:17

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 Thue-Morse constant. So maybe there aren't that many interesting small numbers.

drew · 2006-01-02, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Numbers

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 Thue-Morse constant. So maybe there aren't that many interesting small numbers.

The Planck length has units, which makes the magnitude of the number itself somewhat arbitrary. I could decide to express it in parsecs or angstroms and get vastly different values for the exact same property. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it a true 'number' in the mathematical sense in the same way that Graham's number is a very large number.

It's an interesting question, but I'm afraid I can't offer any other small constants.

Drew

xilman · 2006-01-02, 17:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by drew

The Planck length has units, which makes the magnitude of the number itself somewhat arbitrary. I could decide to express it in parsecs or angstroms and get vastly different values for the exact same property. Therefore, I wouldn't consider it a true 'number' in the mathematical sense in the same way that Graham's number is a very large number.

It's an interesting question, but I'm afraid I can't offer any other small constants.

Drew

There are sundry small and dimensionless quantities in physics. A famous one is the fine structure constant, which is approximately 1/137

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

nibble4bits · 2006-01-04, 02:33

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? :)

mfgoode · 2006-01-04, 17:18

Would -459.67 qualify ?

Mally

cheesehead · 2006-01-04, 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfgoode

Would -459.67 qualify ?

"Smallest" refers to absolute magnitude, not algebraic value, or else ixfd64's "(excluding zero and infinitesimals)" wouldn't make sense.

2006-01-02, 06:05	#1
ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter "Danny" Dec 2002 California 4474₈ 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 physics-related Planck units, but I'm sure there's numbers much smaller.

2006-01-04, 17:18	#10
mfgoode Bronze Medalist Jan 2004 Mumbai,India 2²×3³×19 Posts	smallest number in a mathematical proof? Would -459.67 qualify ? Mally

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fermat number F6=18446744073709551617 is a composite number. Proof.	literka	Factoring	5	2012-01-30 12:28
Could a Distributed Computing approach help find the smallest Brier number?	jasong	Math	5	2007-05-29 13:30
proof of sierpinski number	thommy	Prime Sierpinski Project	1	2006-05-27 06:30
Can you find the smallest number?	Fusion_power	Puzzles	8	2003-11-18 19:36
Smallest untested number?	wirthi	Math	10	2003-10-05 13:02

2006-01-02, 06:31	#2
Citrix Jun 2003 3053₈ Posts	Possibly some paper involving the ABC conjecture would be the answer, in my opinion. Citrix

2006-01-02, 10:32	#4
Orgasmic Troll Cranksta Rap Ayatollah Jul 2003 1201₈ 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.

2006-01-02, 10:56	#5
akruppa "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

2006-01-02, 14:17	#6
Numbers Jun 2005 Near Beetlegeuse 184₁₆ 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 Thue-Morse constant. So maybe there aren't that many interesting small numbers.

2006-01-04, 02:33	#9
nibble4bits Nov 2005 182₁₀ 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? :)