Special whole numbers...

[mfgoode]

:surprised
Hey Richard, what ace have you up your sleeve this time around?
Your friend gives you a 'noteworthy' number and you cant verify the property he is proposing ? Really naughty of you !.
I hope it is a 'memorable' one!
I can only only factorise it and the factors of this 29 digit giant are
2^2 * 3 * 6967968481 * 3748263500961253.

Now here is an easily 'memorable' one
1,000,000,000,063

Mally

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by Richard Cameron

The first ed of Wells lists 41 as the first 'uninteresting' number. 43 is the first natural number not in the book. 43 is of course in the second edition. ......
Richard

I now also have the 97 ed. revised version of the book.
41 is the smallest number that is not of the form | 2x - 3y |.
Mally

[Richard Cameron]

bah humbug. I thought I would get the 200th reply.

anyway back to 43. You'll recall I listed 43 as the first number NOT list in Wells' 1st ed. I've now noticed -quite coincidently- that technetium, atomic number 43, is the first element NOT found in nature.

I think my friend has got 27,893,791,104,637,013,345,492,828,124 wrong.
You were on the right lines Mally when you factored it. It has 2 and 3 as factors so its abundant which is on the way to what I was looking for, but not enough. Sorry.

Richard

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by Richard Cameron

bah humbug. I thought I would get the 200th reply.

anyway back to 43. You'll recall I listed 43 as the first number NOT list in Wells' 1st ed. I've now noticed -quite coincidently- that technetium, atomic number 43, is the first element NOT found in nature. .....
Sorry.
Richard

You don't have to be Richard. Every little bit counts and one thing leads to another. In mountain climbing even the toe hold is helpful.

Regards atomic number 43 its amazing about technetium being the first element Not being found in Nature.

This strengthens my beliefs all the more as its linked and adds weight to what I have been thinking about for decades!

I'll let you into a secret of mine.
43 is the smallest number NOT found in the entire Bible. It cannot find a place in the word of God ! Hence omitted as its Satanic. Now you say it cant find a place in Nature too. Great find, Richard !

In my theory this number seems to be linked to Satan
43 *10 = 430 is the first of 4 components of 666 which can be linked to Satan.
The others are for the Beast, False Prophet and the Image that came to life.
Its all in the Revelation. Try to fathom it out buddy. I have an elaborate formula tying them all up but its too tedious to write it down here.
Mally

[garo]

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Richard Cameron

anyway back to 43. You'll recall I listed 43 as the first number NOT list in Wells' 1st ed. I've now noticed -quite coincidently- that technetium, atomic number 43, is the first element NOT found in nature.

Not strictly true.

It is the first element which does not have any extremely long-lived isotopes (covering myself against the possibility of proton decay!) other than element zero, aka the neutron, which is generally regarded not to be an element anyway.

However, Tc does occur in nature. In the earth's crust there are extremely small amounts formed by neutron-initiated fission of naturally occurring thorium, uranium and plutonium. The Pu itself is formed in small amounts through neutron capture by U-238.

Much larger amounts of Tc are present in some stellar atmospheres. As all the isotopes of Tc have rather short lifetimes it must be continually created from some precursors, presumably middle-weight nuclei and neutrons. Many other stable nucleides are produced in this manner, the so-called slow process. The neutrons are believed to come from burning C-13 with He-4, to produce O-16 and a neutron.

A likely precursor is zirconium, which is a rather stable nucleus and very common in the atmospheres of evolved stars. Successive n-capture produces niobium, molybdenum and then technetium.


Paul

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by xilman

Not strictly true.
It is the first element which does not have any extremely long-lived isotopes (covering myself against the possibility of proton decay!) other than element zero, aka the neutron, which is generally regarded not to be an element anyway. ......

how about this Paul I got from (Technetium) en wiki. ?

Other Forms
Number of isotopes 0 Hydride(s) none
Oxide(s) TcO2 Tc2O7 Chloride(s) TcCl4
Mally

[xilman]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

how about this Paul I got from (Technetium) en wiki. ?

Other Forms
Number of isotopes 0 Hydride(s) none
Oxide(s) TcO2 Tc2O7 Chloride(s) TcCl4
Mally

I was a chemist in a previous life, and so learned something about technetium chemistry. As you would (or should) expect, it's quite similar to the chemistry of manganese, with technetium acting as a metal in the componds you quote, yet also forming salts such as potassium pertechnetiate (KTcO_4) analogous to the well-known potassium permanganate.

As for the lack of hydrides, this is true if what you want is a compound which is stable at room temperature and pressure. TcH is a perfectly stable molecule in the gas phase.

Paul

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by xilman

I was a chemist in a previous life, and so learned something about technetium chemistry. As you would (or should) expect, it's quite similar to the chemistry of manganese, with technetium acting as a metal in the componds you quote, yet also forming salts such as potassium pertechnetiate (KTcO_4) analogous to the well-known potassium permanganate.

As for the lack of hydrides, this is true if what you want is a compound which is stable at room temperature and pressure. TcH is a perfectly stable molecule in the gas phase.

Paul

Ha! ha! I was an apprentice builder under Hiram Abiff the master architect in a previous life and learnt to use Mn to alloy with iron to harden it to steel. As Tc and Mn belong to the same group I concede they have similar properties in forming salts and give you the benefit of the doubt in the others

At present Im a master mason 3*.
Perhaps we have crossed in our past lives. At the Pyramids of Giza?
Mally

[wpolly]

1,000,000,000,063
The smallest 13-digit prime?

Edit: the next number: 196883

[Kees]

Product of three primes in arithmetic progression (47,59,71)

New number: 30042907