## Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

 Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account. As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends. Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games. If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top. If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen. Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse

38 replies to this topic

### #21 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 6157 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 22 September 2007 - 06:54 AM

proving that ...

[1] the smallest number not specifiable in fewer than 23 syllables can be specified in 22 syllables.
[2] there are only a finite number of numbers.
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

### #22 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 6157 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 26 September 2007 - 06:00 AM

Hmmm....
Ok; so there is a finite number of numbers.

No biggie, I guess.
After all, there is also only a finite number of textbooks to be re-written.
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

### #23 cpotting

cpotting

• Members
• 110 posts

Posted 26 September 2007 - 06:57 PM

1,177,777
one million, one hundred seventy seven thousand, seven hundred seventy seven = 23 syllables

One-mill-ion one-hund-red sev-en-ty sev-en thou-sand sev-en hund-red sev-en-ty sev-en = I count 22.

But I realize I am wrong with 7,777,771. It should be 1,777,777
One-mill-ion sev-en hund-red sev-en-ty sev-en thou-sand sev-en hund-red sev-en-ty sev-en = 23.

Well, well, well. You are right. My first reaction was to say "no, it is pronounced mill-ee-un , so it is three syllables, not two", but I thought I had better look it up first. I am not near my trusty Oxford (the only real dictionary), but I did use the the Cambridge online dictionary, and I see that I have been mispronouncing this word - it is mil-yun - two syllables.

In my defense, I found the following:

In standard English, it is pronounced with an l-sound followed by a y-glide. However, as other languages use a fully palatalized 'l' in this word (such as Italian spells by 'gl'), some English-speakers have picked up this pronunciation, which does not occur elsewhere in the English language but in words of this model.

I guess that latter part refers to me.

I have to catch a flight, but this gives me something to do while sitting at 10,000 metres. If I come up with a number, I'll post when I am back home tonight.
• 0

### #24 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 6157 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 26 September 2007 - 10:35 PM

1,177,777
one million, one hundred seventy seven thousand, seven hundred seventy seven = 23 syllables

One-mill-ion sev-en hund-red sev-en-ty sev-en thou-sand sev-en hund-red sev-en-ty sev-en = 23.

Bravo, Writersblock.

1,777,777 is the smallest number not specifiable using fewer than twenty-three syllables.
At least, no one has come up with a smaller number. So let's say it is.
You get the prize.

O wait. This is supposed to be a paradox.

ummm, just for the heck of it, count the syllables in red, above. <== Did anyone do this?

Oh ... we never got to the paradox. Let's try again:

ummm, just for the heck of it, count the syllables in red, above.

the smal-lest num-ber not spe-ci-fi-a-ble us-ing few-er than twen-ty-three syl-la-bles. <== 22 syllables.

If the red words specified the answer, then ....

The smallest number not specifiable using fewer than twenty-three syllables has just been specified using fewer than twenty-three syllables.

Which leads to the conclusion that there is only a finite number of natural numbers.

Good old Berry ...
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

### #25 cpotting

cpotting

• Members
• 110 posts

Posted 27 September 2007 - 02:56 PM

[quote name='"bonanova":aa40e']the smal-lest num-ber not spe-ci-fi-a-ble us-ing few-er than twen-ty-three syl-la-bles. <== 22 syllables.

If the red words specified the answer, then ....

The smallest number not specifiable using fewer than twenty-three syllables has just been specified using fewer than twenty-three syllables.[/quote]
I did count the number of syllables, but I completely missed the fact that this creates a paradox.

Very good.

[quote="bonanova"][Which leads to the conclusion that there is only a finite number of natural numbers.[quote]
I don't see the path to this conclusion. Care to elaborate?

BTW: I am home now and have consulted my Oxford, which gives the pronounciation of million as "-yon". I am utterly defeated.
• 0

### #26 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 6157 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 28 September 2007 - 05:55 AM

OK, the reasoning goes like this.

According to common sense and also something called the Well-ordered Principle,
any set of numbers can be ordered, least to greatest; the only exception being
the empty set. Every non-empty set of numbers has a member which is the
smallest member of that set.

Next...

Using up to N [N is finite] syllables, in various combinations / permutations,
only a finite number of numbers can be described. For example, for N=2 those
numbers would be

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 [using 1 syllable] and
7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 90 [using 2 syllables]

So those are the numbers that can be described using fewer than 3 syllables.
If it could be shown that there are no numbers that cannot be described
using fewer than 3 syllables
, then these would be all the numbers that exist.
A finite number. It would be like proving there are no numbers that require
3 or more syllables.

Let's see if that's possible to do. We ask, what is the smallest number that
cannot be described using fewer than 3 syllables? Well, there is an answer
to that. It's 11 - e-lev-en - 3 syllables. There are others, of course, like 17,
21, 22, ... but 11 is the smallest one.

So there are numbers beyond those describable using fewer than 3 syllables.

But now we ask, what is the smallest number that cannot be described using
fewer than 23 syllables. Well, there seems to be an answer to that as well.
It's 1,777,777. -- 23 syllables, and no one found a smaller one.

1,777,777 was determined to be the number that is described by the phrase
the smallest number that cannot be described using fewer than 23 syllables.
But that phrase has 22 syllables. Ooops!

By that logic 1,777,777 cannot be - nor can any other number be - the smallest
number not specifiable using fewer than 23 syllables. That is, the set of numbers
described by that phrase has no smallest member. By the well-ordered principle,
therefore, that set of numbers is empty.

Now let's talk about the set of all numbers. It comprises two subsets:
[1] the set of all numbers that can be described using fewer than 23 syllables - a finite set [since 23 is finite.]
[2] the set of all numbers that cannot be described using fewer than 23 syllables - by WOP, the empty set.

Thus the set of all numbers is finite.

What have the great brains of our time done about things like this?

They note that the heart of the paradox is that it references itself.
Rather, the answer is described on one level, and disallowed by a
description on another level. That type of paradox is called self-referential.

They deal with it by assigning its statements a level, according to a hierarchy.
Then they allow a statement to reference only those objects on its own level of hierarchy.

In this case the number of syllables in speaking the number would be on a
different hierarchical level from the number of syllables in the phrase that
describes the number
. That phrase would then not be permitted to disallow
the answer found by counting syllables.

Bertrand Russel once said,
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not
to seem worth stating, and to end with somethiong so paradoxical
that no one will believe it.
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

### #27 cpotting

cpotting

• Members
• 110 posts

Posted 28 September 2007 - 05:49 PM

Thanks bonanova. Believe it or not, that made sense.

However, the concept of infinity implies that for any integer, i, there exists i+1. Meaning there are an infinite number of integers.

Since Berry's Paradox leads the conclusion that there are only a finite number of integers, we must then conclude that the concept of "infinity" is flawed, with the following repercussions:

a) the universe's size is a bound value
B) the universe cannot keep expanding
c) there is an upper limit to the number of books Stephen King can write
d) there will be a final episode of General Hospital.

However, since we know that d is impossible, we enter an entirely new kind of paradox.
• 0

### #28 Writersblock

Writersblock

Senior Member

• Members
• 597 posts

Posted 28 September 2007 - 08:21 PM

I think I am somehow missing something, and have an observation.

First, I get the paradox part, and did from the beginning, but I've never seen how

Thus the set of all numbers is finite.

Really, we are trying to define ALL numbers thus:

[1] the set of all numbers that can be described using fewer than 23 syllables - a finite set [since 23 is finite.]
[2] the set of all numbers that cannot be described using fewer than 23 syllables - by WOP, the empty set

Now we only found the SMALLEST of the numbers defined by #2, but there are an infinite amount that go above that number, many of which I am sure cannot be described using fewer than 23 syllables when written out in any way. For example 1,277,777,777. How do you describe this? One-Bill-ion Two-Hund-red Sev-en-ty Sev-en Mill-ion Sev-en Hund-red Sev-en-ty Sev-en Thou-sand Sev-en Hund-red Sev-en-ty Sev-en (33 syllables). It clearly fits into #2. But you CANNOT define it as

the smallest number that cannot be described using fewer than 23 syllables

Nor is it even the smallest number that cannot be described using fewer than 33 syllables. Therefore any description we use invalidates the proposition that ALL numbers contained within the two sets described above fit the paradox. Thus, the set of all numbers are not finite, even using the definition from 1 & 2 above, as I can fit an infinite number of numbers into #2.

Now for my observation. This whole premise requires use of the English language, which has absolutely nothing to do with the language of math, except for convenience of those who prefer to use the language. I am certain that if, for example, we were using Spanish, this whole concept would be moot. (My spanish isn't good enough to lay it out here). Or, if not Spanish, then any other language - even Klingon - is still just a cultural affectation so that we mortals can convey concepts to one another. Therefore no single number (number as a mathmatical concept) is dependant upon the word we attach to define it. The concept defines the word in this case, as [1] is one, uno, eins, ichi, un, etc. If a group of my friends decided from henceforth [1] would be considered "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" then nobody could invalidate that as being correct, at least within my circle of friends who would shout Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious with glee every time the Ace of spades appeared in our card game. So to use any language beyond the language of mathmatics to define a mathmatical concept is folly. As far as I know, you can't (without some sophistry) define the concept of "two" as the concept of "three." Sure, you can attach any modifier (or word) to the concepts, but you cannot make the concepts equal. Therefore you can't truly define "infinite sets" as a mathmatical concept using the weaknesses of a language and then assume that the words applied adequately define the concept. We must first have the concept and then make sure the words we apply adequately convey that concept.
• 0

### #29 bonanova

bonanova

bonanova

• Moderator
• 6157 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:New York

Posted 29 September 2007 - 11:27 PM

I think I am somehow missing something, and have an observation.

First, I get the paradox part, and did from the beginning, but I've never seen how

Thus the set of all numbers is finite.

Really, we are trying to define ALL numbers thus:

[1] the set of all numbers that can be described using fewer than 23 syllables - a finite set [since 23 is finite.]
[2] the set of all numbers that cannot be described using fewer than 23 syllables - by WOP, the empty set

Now we only found the SMALLEST of the numbers defined by #2,
but there are an infinite amount that go above that number,
many of which I am sure cannot be described using fewer
than 23 syllables when written out in any way.

You say that you saw the paradox, but you say we did find the smallest number .... etc.

The paradox says that we did not find ... [nor can anyone find - nor is there]
the smallest number not describable using fewer than twenty-three syllables.

Since that set lacks a smallest member it is the empty set.
• 0

Vidi vici veni.

### #30 Writersblock

Writersblock

Senior Member

• Members
• 597 posts

Posted 01 October 2007 - 06:45 AM

Ah, I think I get it now. The fallicy is juxtaposing the well ordered principal and the concept of "the smallest
number not specifiable using fewer than 23 syllables" to define an empty set. Sorry I was so slow on that one.
• 0

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users