What's your vote for the most interesting constant?

I’m no mathematician but I once found myself fascinated by Euler’s number 2.418(I can’t recall), the one, among many other things, indicates the multiplier of a given sum for continously compounded interest or exponential(?) growth. Obviously i can’t remember the details, but I do vaguely remember the “Secretary Game”, which went somewhere along the lines of, if you knew you had so many secretaries to interview the job, at what point should you take someone you “like” as a good bet given the amount of people left to interview. Anyway, Fibonacci ratio(s) are a close second. What do you think? I hope your more mathematical than me.

e[sup]i*pi[/sup] + 1 = 0. Can’t decide any further than that.

Well the Mersenne Prime Numbers are pretty interesting.

2 to the 6972953th power -1. These are the easiest type of number to check for primality on a binary computer so they usually are the largest primes known.

http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/largest.html#Mersenne

Thats the cite. Cruise around it for a little while, it is mind blowing, but kinda cool to think about…

ultrafilter, how do you get the powers on your equation? More precisely what keys do you utilize to get the powers into the equation, or are you just cut and pasting?

It’s a vB tag. Hit the quote button underneath my post and all shall be revealed.

Planck’s, without a doubt.

It’s such an extremely fundamental value in the construction of the universe, and you can actually measure it quite well in a bloody high school lab. Blew me away, for sure.

S. Norman

I like pi (pie?). Make mine blueberry. :slight_smile:

Rock on!! Ultrafilter. Thank you very much

  • bows and salutes *

**e[SUP]i-1a[/SUP] **

It works, wow, OMG!! and I thought I had even a rudimentary knowledge of programs…thanks…

Damn, I was going to say Planck’s. I love Planck’s. Whenever I can remember what it is (sometimes I can hold the basic concepts of quantum mechanics in my head for five minutes at a time before they slip away again.)

(Since Norman didn’t tell you, Planck’s constant defines the ratio between radient energy and wave frequence given off by, say, a light bulb, where E= hv, E being the amount of energy, v being the frequence and h being Planck’s constant (roughly .000000000000000000000000006624). And as should be obvious to everyone :rolleyes: this means that energy is emmitted in discreet packages, called quanta, rather than a continuous stream. And therefore…well therefore all kinds of things. My five minutes are up.)

Well then, I’ll have to pick the speed of light.

Perverse choices:

G: It’s among the less well-known constants. Very tough to measure in the lab. Slipperly lil’ devil.

H[sub]0[/sub]: Should not be called Hubble’s constant, but rather Hubble’s slowly-varying variable.

I always like the idea that, up until the wild flucations in the value of gold in the last quarter of the 20th century, an ounce of gold would buy a suit of men’s clothing, whether it was a Brooks Brothers suit, full dress kilt & regalia, or jousting armor.

What?

Are you talking about the universal gravitational constant?

[Moderator Hat ON]

I like this thread. But it’s a survey or request for opinions, not a Great Debate. I’m moving it to IMHO.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Uh, yeah. Is there another G?

Signed, Podkayne the Provincial Astronomer.

Not that I know of. I just wasn’t aware that G wasn’t well-known (especially given that we’ve already mentioned Planck’s constant and the fine structure constant).

Yup!

Measuring G.

And here’s a popular-level article.

ultrafilter took all the good ones: 0, 1, i, pi, e in the first post :mad:

Well, y’all can have all of your finite constants; I like epsilon-null. The smallest transfinite ordinal such that e = omega[sup]e[/sup]


Virtually yours,

DrMatrix — My constant is bigger that yours :stuck_out_tongue:

Dammit! If you had claimed a cardinal, I could’ve come up with a bigger one. Yeah, yeah, take your transfinite ordinals. I hope you’re happy.

Yes, I’m happy! :smiley:

[sub]Should I mention that epsilon-null is countable? . . . Nah.[/sub]

[list]2+2=4
:cool: