Math and Arithmetic
Numbers
Biggest, Strongest, Fastest and Other Extremes

# What is the smallest number?

929394 ###### 2020-05-10 11:19:13

the average of three number in 135 the largest of these number is 180 and the difference between other two number is 25 what is the value of the smallest number

🎃
0
🤨
0
😮
0
😂
0 ###### 2009-04-18 11:49:34

<><><>

: Whilst the question simply asks what the smallest number is, mathematicians define and discuss numbers in different ways depending on the needs of the problem. We classify numbers into sets, so the answer to "what is the smallest number" would depend on which set of numbers we are using. :

: The smallest natural number is 1. :

: If referring to the set of whole numbers, or integers, or rational numbers, or real numbers the answer to the question is in my opinion is zero. Zero is a whole number. Zero is an integer. Zero is a rational number. Zero is a real number. As far as mathematicians are concerned zero is a number. It is a member of several different sets of numbers. To have no value, or no quantity, no magnitude is to have less then, or a smaller amount of any other amount you could have. :

: If we don't like zero because we decide we want the smallest number that has a value or has a quantity or has a magnitude we are making a rather arbitrary decision. : If we want the number with the smallest quantity (other than no quantity)…an awkward question indeed…then zero is not the answer to the question, but unfortunately there would be no answer to the question. : If we try to answer the question "what is the smallest number with non-zero quantity", we might explore rational numbers. A rational number is defined as a number that can be represented by a/b where a and b are both integers and b is not zero. The rational number 2/3 for example is a single number. When defined as a rational number it does not need to relate back to 1, it does not need to be a fraction of 1, it does not need to be defined as a fraction of a whole though it can represent a fraction of a whole, it does however have a magnitude. 2/3 is an example of a number that is smaller than 1. Of course we could write all sorts of increasingly smaller rational numbers. In the set of rational numbers there is no smallest number with a non zero quantity. :

: The set of real numbers includes the rational numbers, so there is no smallest real number. :

: Irrational Numbers like e or π or √2 are an interesting set. You can make increasingly smaller irrational numbers, such as π/10 or π/100 and so on, but whether π/10 is a number or it is merely an irrational expression, I am not sure. I suspect expressions like π/10 are not numbers. :

: There is another set of numbers mathematicians use called the set of hyperreal numbers. Infinitesimals are an example of these. Infinitesimals are discrete quantities. They are numbers. But the value of a single infinitesimal when converted to a real number is zero. There is no smallest infinitesimal because you could take any given infinitesimal and divide it by 2, or by 100….. : To summarize: :

: If we don't put any limitations on the question and take it for how it is written, then the smallest (real) number is zero. By Occam's razor this seems to be the best answer. :

: If we limit the question to natural numbers the answer is 1. :

: If we limit the question to real numbers or rational numbers or integers or whole numbers and rephrase the question to say "what is the smallest number with a non zero quantity…" then there is no answer. :

: If we take other number sets (like hyperreal numbers) then we can come up with things like infinitesimals that have discrete quantities and values and magnitudes, but again there is no answer to the question. I would be very interested in a post by a real mathematician regarding the possibility of a smallest number in more obscure number sets. : The Guinness book of records states that Graham's number is the biggest number that has actually been used in a mathematical proof, so perhaps we should ask "What is the smallest number that has ever been used for anything?".

<><><>

* The smallest number is the "-" so which means that the number can also become the -99999999999999999..............99999999 any thing like that. or any thing like the number like -89797776565654356787879 but any thing with a bar on any negative number is he smallest number. * It depends what you are talking about: -if you are talking about LENGTH:

the smallest possible distance is the 'Planck Length' of 1.616252 x 10-35 meters. It the 'quantum of length', the smallest measurement of length with any meaning.

-if you are talking about TIME:

the smallest possible time is 'Planck Time' of 10-43 seconds. This is the 'quantum of time', the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning. No smaller division of either has any meaning. (Both named after Max Planck who first formulated the quantum theory in 1900 and won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1918.)

* You can still talk about the number 10-10000 in the context of pure mathematics. You can even talk about the number 1/(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10^10))))). This number still exists even though there is no length or time that small. * The smallest number is Zero. This whole discussion is rather silly. * The Question that was actually asked was: "What is the smallest Number?" not "What is the smallest Number actually used for?" . It has been proven by Quantum Mechanics that in the real world there is actually no such thing as "Zero" because there is a smallest possible length which cannot be sub-divided any further: it is an actual number, a finite distance. Actually "Zero" (ie 0.0000...0)) is not a Number: it is an abstract concept. The Collins English Dictionary defines "Zero" as: "The symbol 0, indicating an absence of quantity or magnitude; nought." * That is true. Zero is an abstract concept. All numbers are abstract concepts, so there is no problem there. In pure mathematics, everything is an abstract concept. Mathematics is not concerned with the real world. It is hard to argue that zero is not a number, because it obviously is. * In the book Naive Set Theory by Pual Halmos, it says: "How much is two? How, more generally are we to define numbers? ... How would a mathematician define a meter? ... by a more or less arbitrary convention an object is selected and its length is called a meter... motivated by the considerations above, we have earlier defined 2 as some particular set with (intuitively speaking) exactly two elements... * Lets assume 7 has already been defined. How should we define eight? Where, in other words can we find a set consisting of exactly eight elements? We can find seven elements in the number (set) seven. What should we use as the eight? A reasonable answer is the number (set) 7 itself... We are now ready to define the natural numbers. In defining zero to be a set with zero elements we have no choice; we must write 0 = [the empty set]. If every natural number is to be equal to the set of its predecessors, we have no choice in defining 1, 2, or three either; we must write 1 = {0} ... 2 = {0,1} ... 3 = {0,1,2} etc. " * Evidently zero is a natural number. * If we don't like 0 for an answer, and we accept the fact that negative numbers are not smaller numbers, and we accept that infinite is not a number but a concept, then the smallest number would be one divided by the biggest number. The biggest number with a name is Graham's number. One divided by Graham's number would be the smallest number. 1/g64 Or you could take One divided by Graham's number squared. * The smallest named number is 0.00000000000000000000001 one septillionth * I would think that the smallest (not least) natural number is 0. If we wanted to use positive numbers we should just use reciprocals of very large number like googolplex. Where N-minex=10-N, the numbers googolminex (the reciprocal of googolplex). But then again you could keep adding more -minex's to the name of the # to make it smaller. I think googolminex is the smallest named number but in theory the smallest number I think is an infinith. * Anything that goes away from zero gets bigger, so the closer you get to zero the smaller it is. Zero isn't the smallest number, because zero is nothing. * So the closest is near to 1/Graham's number to the power of Graham's number, Graham's number of times.

🎃
0
🤨
0
😮
0
😂
0

## Related Questions   -99 is the smallest two digit number.-99 is the smallest two digit number.-99 is the smallest two digit number.-99 is the smallest two digit number.       no 0 isn't the smallest number because there are negative numbers so there really is no biggest number nor smallest number 1 is the Natural number which is the smallest Odd number.  Number two (2) is the smallest whole even number. There is no smallest number, in any base. 0.54 is smaller. But there is no smallest number. The smallest multiple of a number is itself. If 0 can be counted as the first number, then the smallest number is 01358. If 0 cannot be counted as the first number, the the smallest number is 10358. There is no smallest whole number. Assume that k is the smallest whole number.Consider (k-1).It is smaller than k and it is a whole number.This contradicts the assumption that k is the smallest whole number.Such a number does not exist. The smallest prime number is 2. The smallest prime number greater than 100 is 101. The smallest 7 digit number is -9,999,999. The smallest positive number is 1,000,000.   No. The number 2 is a prime number. The smallest, positive composite number is 4.  ###### Math and ArithmeticBrain Teasers and Logic PuzzlesPrime NumbersNumbers Factoring and MultiplesUS Constitution Copyright © 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.