A long time ago I heard about a funny paradox. The paradox was about the lowest integer number that was not special in any way. “Special numbers” were defined by certain rules. Even numbers were special, so were prime numbers, any multiple of 5, 2 in any power and any number with two digits alike. There may have been a few more, but they all made sense in the way that the numbers they defined somehow “felt” special.

Finally, the lowest number that was not special, is of course special for the very reason that it was the lowest number that was not special, so in turn we would have to look for another number that would be the lowest number that was not special and so on ad infinitum.

I don’t remember the source of this paradox, but I’m going to suggest another similar one. What is the lowest integer number that can not be found with Google? When you find one, you must post it on the web (e.g. in a comment to this post). It will then be indexed on Google and is no longer the lowest number that can not be found on Google, so that the hunt continues.

If you post the number somewhere else on the web, please post a comment here anyway to help others keep track of the current lowest number.

Below is a graph of the number of occurrences Google finds each integer from 1 to 100. We could call this the “significance index” of the number. The least significant number between 1 and 100 is 87, with “only” 27 million occurrences.

The goal of the game is to find the first number with the significance index of zero. I’ve found one manually, but I doubt it is the lowest one: **9,483,287**. Judging from the trends in my random manual searches, I guess that the lowest number might be found somewhere around **2,000,000**.

Now to perform the search, don’t write anything that Google might see as a denial-of-service attack – please. This is just supposed to be an innocent game.

So, do you think we should patent the lowest number? I mean obviously there is no prior art if it is not found with Google, right?

### Like this:

Like Loading...

*Related*

I found one!, and I challenge anyone to find a lower integer. Admittedly, this is a bit of a cheat, but interestingly, if you remove just one zero before the one, Google finds a match 🙂

The lowest integer not on Google is (patent pending):

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000001

MMMmmm

-1

Integer: A member of the set of positive whole numbers {1, 2, 3, . . . }, negative whole numbers {−1, −2, −3, . . . }, and zero {0}.

hehe…ok its a google hack, but Google is god and google says that -1 is not present on the internet. “-1” is though 🙂

You nerds are a tough crowd as always 🙂

So, let’s make it: The lowest positive integer with no leading zeros.

31216121

31596121

32156121

ahh crap, wrong count :s this is 31 not 3,1 bah

Douwe Osinga has some interesting observations about the hunt for ungoogleable numbers on his blog.

so close :o)

7818968

9,483,287 is officially no longer the lowest known ungoogleable number, as it now Googles to both my site and that of Douwe Osinga which btw has some intelligent ideas on how to find the ultimate Wetware-integer.

The hunt is still on, but my best result so far is:

785O9O4

Yes, I replaced the zero’s.

Douwe

are you sure about that number Osinga, some google servers must have been down or something because I get two results when I google 78594 and I confine my search to English and Icelandic

heh, looks like my zeros got wiped out when I posted (on account of looking like html tags) the number is of course supposed to be 785o9o4