## List of Numbers – you can help by expanding it …

What else would you do on Towel Day, than browse Douglas Adams references on wikipedia? Hence leading me (in true xkcd style) via the number 42 to the list of numbers page:

Yes you read that right – “This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries.”

It would appear to me that this might be missing a citation – infinity!

Still I was impressed by the dedication. At the time of writing, all numbers up to ~210 seem to have their own wikipedia page … then in 10s, then 100s, then 1000s and so on.

Nice to see some named numbers (hello Graham), then some specialist numbers (primes, etc), notable integers, specialist scientific numbers, right through to numbers with no specific value. Really.

In fact, this page would seem a shining example of the interesting number paradox in action. In fact the same thought appears to have occurred to someone else, as the interesting number paradox page has this to say:

- 224 (number), the smallest natural number which does not have its own Wikipedia article.

I wonder how many times the wikipedia page for 224 has been created and removed over the years!

Of course my favourite number is 2. It’s so odd … it’s the only even prime.

Kevin

## A paradox …

Its funny what you find browsing wikipedia. One page I stumbled across recently, is the list of paradoxes. This really is fascinating reading.

I quite like the logic and mathematical paradoxes. One that caught my eye is the interesting number paradox, which says that the first number to be considered dull (ie not interesting), becomes interesting simply because if this fact.

Some other interesting ones are the self-referential ones, like ‘this page is intentionally blank‘, the liar’s paradox and so on.

There are some related pages that are also worthy of a read, see Zenos Paradoxes and Impossible Objects.

Kevin.