What's the most useful number?

69

n

-1/12

>proven theorem

It's a philosophical concept you mongoloid. Not proven, not a theorem.

I'd say it's 28980, because it contains the most important divisor pair known to man. Homework: determine this pair.

i

0 prove me wrong fags

Probably these numbers, in some order:

8, 8, 2, 0, 5, 7, 6

the phone number of that hot chick from math class

That's not a number that's a letter you idiot

Look up continuum mechanics nigger.

NOT ACTUAL NUMBERS. IMAGINARY CRAP

Show us an actual number then.

Oh wait, you can't.

Define "usefulness" and how to measure it

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

AND SO ON

Go to bed Kronecker.

WELL IF YOU'RE A EVOLUTIONIST EVERYTHING STARTED FROM NOTHING.

Hello loud Veeky Forums poster. I see you've been posting in a lot of threads these past few days. Also, you're almost always wrong while also being highly confrontational. You want to talk about that?

No single number is more useful than another user. There are a combination of numbers to be considered.
Here are all the most important numbers in mathematics summarized into 1 formula:
e^iπ + 1 = 0

those are integers

"actual" numbers have no mathematical definition. Therefor, It's accurate to say your "actual" numbers are IMAGINARY CRAP

666

Fpbp

maybe if you are a paranoid suicidan schizo conspiracy theorist, otherwise it is about at sueful as the number 324.

six hundred gorillion

>those are integers

SPOTTED THE COMPUTER SCIENCE NIGGER. THE ONLY ACTUAL NUMBERS ARE CALLED THE NATURAL NUMBERS.

I CAN HAVE 1 APPLE
I CAN HAVE 4156 APPLES
BUT I CAN'T HAVE -5 APPLES
NEITHER π APPLES
NEITHER 4 + 5i APPLES

Funny thing is that when I need to redownload this image, I just type "greasy guy numberphile" on google.

spotted the sheep
the world is a simulation, you can't have any apples

The modern scientist

>hahaha wow I can't represent this particular real object using those numbers therefore those numbers don't exist!

Correct
THREAD OVER

>HAHAHA WOW I CAN'T REPRESENT ANY REAL WORLD THING USING THOSE NUMBERS BUT THEY MUST EXIST!

>Look mom I posted it again

>NATURAL NUMBERS.

but OP didn't ask "What's the most useful natural number?"

also, 0 is considered a natural number

>I CAN'T REPRESENT ANY REAL WORLD THING USING THOSE NUMBERS

How do you represent an apple cut in half with "natural numbers"?
>in b4 sliced apples don't exist

ONE "APPLE CUT IN HALF"

BUT NATURAL NUMBERS ARE THE ONLY ACTUAL NUMBERS

>ONE "APPLE CUT IN HALF"

and how do you represent "CUT IN HALF" with numbers?

No

Instead let's try to make captions for this image

>If you get this question right you get to munch on my old grey muff

take your meds and go to bed, Grandpa pls

is it 420 and 69

if so please become a turnip farmer and leave

THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST, DO YOU KNOW IT?

Q more useful than N

useless by itself
only useful as e^x

you can arrive at 1 from any number that isn't 0. So its usefulness is literally bounded by that of any nonzero number.

or ln(x)

0

I'd say 2. If you have none or one of something, you don't even need to put a number on it. If you have three or more, then "a few" or "several" will do just fine. But two is a very useful number.

Underrated post.

>also, 0 is considered a natural number
NO. ABSOLUTELY HARAM

Aýyyyyyýyyýyyyyyý

2

I remember the first time I saw this. Jesus know I've laughed hard.

it is sometimes, it doesn't pose many problems and useful for addition

1, because its the generator of the set of natural numbers, therefore any number n can broken down into the sum of 1 with group operations

oh shit I mean of integers

while the set of natural numbers is not a group which why I had to change it to as there does not exist an a^(-1) for every element of (N,+) unlike in (Z,+) is however it is a moniod

which if we define N to be a moniod under addition (every non brainlet to does this) 0 must be included as it would not be a moniod without the identity of its host group (Z,+)

>THE ONLY ACTUAL NUMBERS ARE CALLED THE NATURAL NUMBERS.

What if you had half an apple?

then you'd have one "half apple"

the rationals are redundant

I thought this was the genetically modified turnip picture sharing forum. Oh well...

dubs.

AND HOW DO YOU REPRESENT "APPLE" WITH NUMBERS?

How do you compare two length, such the second one is twice the third of the first one ?

length two is one two third length one

No, how do you [math] \mathbf{compare} [/math] them ?

i just did, one is explained comparitively to the other

YOU SUBTRACT THE FIRST ONE MINUS THE SECOND ONE, THE DIFFERENCE IS THE COMPARISON YOU NEED

Ok, so what is one two third ? Is it a concept ?

trying to hard

>Ok, so what is one two third ?
i don't know, you just made up this term, feel free to define it if you want

I can just derive a unit of measurement that allows for 4 + 5i apples. I have a tree that produces x apples, and Jake has a tree that produces 4 less apples than me. I, complacent with my lead, don't try to increase my number of apples. Jake being quite mathematically adept realizes that if he clones his tree (x-4) times he'll have (x-4)^2 apples next season. Just to be safe he goes to the store and buys another 25 apples. Now I have x apples and jake has (x-4)^2+25 apples. But when apple season comes around Jake counts his apples and finds that he has 0 apples on his trees or anywhere. How can this be? He takes out his pencil and paper and tries to figure out how many apples I must have since he knows he has four less apples than me squared plus 25. He solves and gets x = 4 +- 5i apples. But little did he know I had secretly increased my supply of apples by x*k apples giving me 41 total apples. When he learns this he solves the two seperate equations: (4-5i)^2*k=41 and (4+5i)^2*k=41 for k yielding: k=-9/41+40i/41 and k=-9/41-40i/41. Plugging this new equation for x back into his equation gives him ((x^2*k)-4)^2=0 which holds true in two of the scenarios which upon inspection are equal.

From this he concludes that there must exists a theoretical dark apple such that ((x-4)^2+25) + 41 apples = 41 apples.

Any non-zero, non-one number

> you just made up this term
No, you did. But I like it very much indeed. I'll call it a rational number, if you please.

no, i referred to one "two third length one"
please don't put words in my mouth

next?

But what is an apple?

The collapse of a wave function.

stop being retarded

Assume you have a box which contains an apple and there's a vial of poison inside the box

> getting this defensive

Oh, so you're so weak that you cannot derive the concept of one "two third" from one "two third of length one" ?

what defensive? you're the one plainly making things up, you've even gone further to misquote me by inputting the word "of". if you want to derive the concept of "two third" feel free, i'm not against that.

try again.

NONSENSE

>I have a tree that produces x apples, and Jake has a tree that produces 4 less apples than me

JAKE'S TREE IS IMAGINARY CRAP IF X IS LESS THAN 3

ALSO

>CLONING TREES (X-4) TIMES

THIS IS THE TYPE OF ARGUMENTS MATHEMATICIANS MAKE

12, also known to the general public as -1/ infinity

As long as they are dubs, obviously

show me where e is useful that is not connected to e^x (or its inverse)

Compound interest:
[math] \lim_{n \to \infty} {\left( 1 +\frac{1}{n} \right)^n = e}[/math]

how is that not connected to e^x?

show me where pi is useful that is not connected to a circle

show me where a screwdriver is useful that is not connected to screws

do you see an x? how is it connected to e^x?

pi is part of e^x's period
shows up in many series: basel problem ζ(2)
also: Γ(½) = sqrt pi

how is that not connected to circles?

i

what do you do with that result? it is rather useless if you dont use it as a base for an exponential function.