New Company Seeks to Bring Semantic Context To Numbers

A new company, True#, is seeking to bring extensive semantic context to numbers to give them obvious meanings just as certain words have obvious meanings to most readers. "Most of us can probably recognize 3.14159 and the conceptual baggage it carries, but how many of us would recognize 58.44? (That's a mole of sodium chloride, in grams, for the curious.) And the response that would work for words — look it up — doesn't work so conveniently for numbers. Only one of the top-10 hits in Google refers to salt, and Bing fails entirely (though it does offer 'Women's Sexy Mini Skirts by VENUS'). Clearly, we haven't figured out how to make the Web work for numbers in the same way it does for words."

Comments

Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[Monkeedude1212]

1337 returns EXACTLY what I expected.

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[suso]

So does 69 and 42. Maybe they are related.

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[sadness203]

I did know about 69 ... but 42 ... It's kind of kinky.

What, the hhgttg? Nop, never heard of it.

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[davester666]

> I did know about 69 ... but 42 ... It's kind of kinky.

You don't like thigh on shin action?

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[haifastudent]

And when web searches fail to find what you need, Wikipedia often has you covered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/58.44

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[suso]

*WHOOSH*

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

*WHOOSH*

*WHOOSH*

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[gamefaces]

And when web searches fail to find what you need, Wikipedia often has you covered: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/58.44

I fail to see any results relating to a mole of sodium chloride, in grams.

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[mftb]

this is worth framing and putting on a wall

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[camperdave]

I fail to see any results relating to a mole of sodium chloride, in grams.

Really? This entry is about halfway down the first page:

# Stoichiometry frac 2.00 \mbox g NaCl 58.44 \mbox g NaCl mol^-1 0.034 \ \text mol In the above example, when written out in fraction form, the units of ... 17 KB (2309 words) - 17:37, 10 July 2009

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[ittybad]

Obligatory:
xkcd numerical sex positions.

Re:Web searches aren't THAT bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

*WHOOSH*

Works for me

[winkydink]

I get one return for NaCl on Bing and nothing about miniskirts.

Cue the conspiracy theorists.

Re:Works for me

[Dr. Evil]

Maybe Bing learns from previous searches.

Re:Works for me

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Working as intended.

What, you thought the net was for number nerds?

Re:Works for me

[Verdatum]

I get a hit discussing "Which hot moms wear their teen's jeans!"

Re:Works for me

[AliasMarlowe]

Maybe Bing learns from previous searches.

...by google!

Re:Works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

...or reads Slashdot?

When I search for infinity...

[Anonymusing]

...it returns "number of years it will take before True# turns a profit."

I'm seriously confused how many companies will jump at this -- and why someone like Google won't just do it for free? Couldn't you use Google Base for something like this?

Re:When I search for infinity...

[Ron Bennett]

Speaking of infinity, query the number "11 trillion" ... in my view, both Google and Bing get it exactly right!

Which begs the question, what's the point of this True# service when the major search engines already appear to do a good job with numbers.

Ron

Re:When I search for infinity...

[Artifakt]

Following through on this reveals the National Debt Clock is now slashdotted. Either you've stopped the debt from increasing or now we will never get it paid down, all thanks to you. I don't know whether to welcome you as my new clock stopping overlord or cover some petrified Korean with grits.

why

[stoolpigeon]

In all seriousness - this is not a rhetorical question. Usually I want this information in the inverse order, not just having a number with no context. What is the value in searching in that direction is their some widespread need I don't know about?

Re:why

[winkydink]

Shhhh... Since when has making sense had anything to do with raising money from VC's? Especially when you can use the word crowdsourcing in your pitch.

Re:why

[Yvan256]

He would get a lot more money if his project used open source cloud crowdsourcing 2.0.

Re:why

[Anonymusing]

I'm sorry, but I own the trademark on "Open Source Cloud Crowdsourcing 2.0" (R), so prepare for a call from my lawyers.

I also own the phrases "Enterprise Blogging for the Dynamic Synergy Framework" (R) and "Proactively Empowering the Long-Tail Social Paradigm Shift" (R).

Re:why

[93 Escort Wagon]

In all seriousness - this is not a rhetorical question. Usually I want this information in the inverse order, not just having a number with no context. What is the value in searching in that direction is their some widespread need I don't know about?

I suspect the primary use would be using an internet-connected device to cheat on multiple-choice tests.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh... Since when has making cents had anything to do with raising money from VC's? Especially when you can use the word crowdsourcing in your pitch.

Fixed that for you.

Re:why

[Obfuscant]

I'm sorry, but I own the trademark on "Open Source Cloud Crowdsourcing 2.0" (R), so prepare for a call from my lawyers.

You don't have a case. He paid AP $0.57 for the right to use those words.

Re:why

[Obfuscant]

I suspect the primary use would be using an internet-connected device to cheat on multiple-choice tests.

So you are saying that when someone sees the question: "What is the molecular weight of NaCl? 1) 34.99 2) 43.33 3) 58.44 4) 3" they'll google each number to see what it says instead of googling the question itself?

Re:why

[93 Escort Wagon]

So you are saying that when someone sees the question: "What is the molecular weight of NaCl? 1) 34.99 2) 43.33 3) 58.44 4) 3" they'll google each number to see what it says instead of googling the question itself?

It's been a while since I was in college; but as I recall the multiple-choice questions were rather more complicated than that - the one you posted seems maybe junior-high/middle-school level. I don't think Googling the question would be a useful technique for even a college "Introduction to Chemistry" course.

So, in short - yes.

Re:why

[steelfood]

You're right. Numbers are the abstract representation of a specific concept. Words are a specific representation of an abstract concept.

It doesn't make sense to search the other way. Sure, you can search for, say, 58.44 and get relatively few correct responses. However, what if you searched for 10? Or 1024? Then what's supposed to come up?

Numbers don't have any a priori meaning. They require context. Otherwise, they're just a meaningless abstraction. Context makes 1 and 12 different, or the same (inches in a foot). It doesn't make sense to compare 1 mol of NaCl with 12 light years. As human beings, we can imply context without explicitly stating it. But that doesn't mean we don't need context.

It's like the difference between mathematics and physics. Pure mathematics is not useful without an application to a physical problem (not to say that there's no purpose to development of pure mathematics).

Re:why

[maharb]

The question could easily be worded "Which substance has the molecular weight of 58.44". FYI

Re:why

[KylePflug]

Someone mod this gentleman up. The entire premise of TFS is flawed; words, by design, suggest a single meaning. Numbers, by design, do not.

Re:why

[Anonymous Coward]

Just search for constant 58.44 on Google. Worked quite well

Re:why

[Unixnoteunuchs]

All integers are interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox). Real numbers bore the hell out of me, though.

Re:why

[aynoknman]

Numbers, like words, vary in the amount of meaning they have. Consider for example "the" and "precise". You know quite precisely what I mean by "precise", but the "the" well, it's fuzzier.
3 is much less meaningful than 3.14159.
Look, you can even have puns -- 3.13159! ( "!" here is grammatical not factorial. I am definitely not referring to this)

Re:why

[kcjefff]

I'm with you. I mean, Why the hell do we have to assign a Jewish meaning to numbers? Hitler must be spinning in his grave.

Re:why

[Paul Carver]

http://www.google.com/search?q=molecular+weight+of+58.44&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Third link, you don't even need to click on it, it's in the summary.

Re:why

[Eravau]

Or more likely...

58.44 is the molecular weight of which?
1) NaCl
2) K2CO3
3) KCl
4) CaCl2

Re:why

[maharb]

I don't see how this is relevant to my post at all. Thanks though. I was pointing out that the 'moderated insightful' parent to my post was actually someone who wanted to twist things to look smart. In other words I was proposing that the same question can be asked in many ways. The number doesn't have to be in the answers part of the question as the parent is implying but instead can be in the question. The parent was exploiting a single case and extrapolating the idea to all cases. This is clearly a mistake in logic that I was pointing out only due the parent being modded insightful when in reality the parents post is a fallacy.

I don't see how you missed what I was doing there.

Although this specific question may not lend it's self to needing to google a number alone, a completely different question could for instance:

"What is the significance of 3.14...." or "What does 58.44 represent in the following formula?".

These questions keep the number in the question while giving you no other information but the number to google.

Re:why

[Obfuscant]

This is clearly a mistake in logic that I was pointing out only due the parent being modded insightful when in reality the parents post is a fallacy.

While it is true that you can word any question any damn way you want, it is UNlikely that the question would be worded backwards, to ask what compound has a specific molecular weight.

To word it backwards would require four times the effort on the part of the student to demonstrate one simple concept, and more effort on the part of the instructor to create three wrong answers. He would have to calculate the molecular weight to make sure it wasn't the same. It is TRIVIAL to create fictional answers to the question when the known molecular weight of the one compound in question is known; simply use different numbers.

The "logical fallacy" here is that questions will be asked in all possible orders instead of the most logical.

Perhaps that is why, in all the chemistry classes I've taken and TA'd, the question has never been "what has the molecular weight 58.44?", but the more direct and logical "What is the molecular weight of NaCl?"

Re:why

[maharb]

Have you ever take a higher education course? I have seen all sorts of ways to ask 'simple' questions. The idea being that you must understand the concepts and the question more than just memorization of key numbers and figures.

Teachers are not trying to write the easiest or most correct way of asking a question, they are trying to test knowledge. Many times that means wording questions differently than they would be in a normal conversation.

I almost feel like digging up old test questions I have been asked as examples but I don't have my old tests close by. Regardless, it would not be rare to see a question worded 'oddly' in a university/college setting. For instance the second question I proposed above "What does 58.44 represent in the following formula?" Would require you to demonstrate far greater understanding of chemistry than would asking "What has the molecular weight 58.44?"

The former question is a college/university level question while the latter is a high school level question.

Re:why

[Obfuscant]

Have you ever take a higher education course?

Yes. Have you ever taught one?

Teachers are not trying to write the easiest or most correct way of asking a question, they are trying to test knowledge.

Yes, and "what is 58.44?" is a meaningless question. "What is 58.44 in the following equation?" doesn't test anything.

I've never seen questions about molecular weight in the form you propose. Maybe I went to better schools than you did. Not my problem. And if I caught you using your iPhone to google for the answers to ANY question in ANY format on any of MY tests, you'd be dropped from the class and reported for cheating.

Next question?

Re:why

[maharb]

"What does 58.44 represent in the following equation?" Would obviously include an equation after it which used the molecular mass of NaCl in a computation. You would have to recognize how 58.44 interacted with the equation in order to correctly answer the question. I didn't make up an equation because I have already spent enough time on this crap.

I have never taught a single class. That doesn't make me any less capable of understanding how teachers ask questions. Nor does it make my original argument, that your first post is a fallacy, any less valid. It also doesn't make a difference on subsequent arguments unless you can point to a valid reason why it may.

These questions are common when taking tests that should be short answer but are multiple choice due to class sizes and grading restrictions.

Also, I find it humorous that you are randomly bringing up the fact that it is cheating to use an iPhone/computer on a test. I hope no one would try and say it is not cheating but for some reason you just randomly bring it up.

I am glad you are sticking to the argument at hand rather than attacking my character.

Re:why

[Obfuscant]

"What does 58.44 represent in the following equation?" Would obviously include an equation after it which used the molecular mass of NaCl in a computation.

If this is the level of discussion you wish to hold, please continue without me. Simply stating the obvious as if I was too stupid to know the obvious is not going to convince me of anything, anyway.

I have never taught a single class. That doesn't make me any less capable of understanding how teachers ask questions.

But less capable of knowing why.

Also, I find it humorous that you are randomly bringing up the fact that it is cheating to use an iPhone/computer on a test.

Again, if this is the level of debate you wish to hold, look elsewhere. I did not bring up the fact that it was cheating, the original poster did so when he commented that it sounded like the ability to have a search engine based on numbers would make it easy to cheat on tests. Nor is it "random" to bring that point back up, since it is a far better point than "how are questions worded?" It doesn't matter how the question is worded, it is cheating, and if you get caught doing it it won't matter whether you were googling "molecular weight nacl" or "58.44", you are still getting booted from class and (I hope) expelled.

Errrm

[MyLongNickName]

So, a search doesn't bring up what one person would expect and that means the search engine failed? Sometimes the problem with logical fallacies is that they are so big as to defy categorization.

Re:Errrm

[St.Creed]

But this is slashdot. We could always use a bad car analogy:

"This is like saying you expected your car to not only go 100 mp/g, but also fly, and that means the car failed?" :)

Wrong conclusion

[godrik]

Only one of the top-10 hits in Google refers to salt, and Bing fails entirely (though it does offer "Women's Sexy Mini Skirts by VENUS").

Bing seems far superior to my hormon^W^Wme.

Wolfram Alpha

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolfram Alpha returned:

cosh((2 (4+pi))/3)~~58.439252

Re:Wolfram Alpha

[pele]

interesting, isn't it? after all the bragging about it's endless scientific prowess...

Re:Wolfram Alpha

[2obvious4u]

If give it 58.4 it returns: frequency of the note A#

Re:Wolfram Alpha

[louiswins]

Oddly enough, for 58.443 (which someone quoted below as the "accepted" value), Wolfram Alpha returns 20-22M~~58.4464210, where M is "the" Madelung constant, which, according to MathWorld, refers to the Madelung constant for NaCl.

Sig Figs

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the accepted weight is 58.443 thats why Bing didn't show any NaCl results.

Re:Sig Figs

[aicrules]

Bing and/or google will also not show results you expect for words if you don't actually put in enough context to make the search relevant for you. I mean seriously, who's going to look up 58.44 or even 58.443 all by itself? What were they trying to find? If you want all instances of the number 58.44, then that's all you type. Otherwise you need to add some qualifier, otherwise you're going to get whatever Bing or Google determines is most likely a match to what you want. Simply add "weight" or "mole" and bam...almost all exactly the results you'd be looking for...maybe. As I'm still not sure what you'd be looking for...somehow you have to indicate what realm you're looking in...

Re:Sig Figs

[TubeSteak]

Actually, the accepted weight is 58.443 thats why Bing didn't show any NaCl results.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1+mole+of+sodium+chloride
Wolphram Alpha calls it 58.4

so much for significant figures.

Re:Sig Figs

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, now I get "Mistress Jennifer - Porn Review Of MistressJennifer"

Thanks ;)

Re:Sig Figs

[Tumbleweed]

Wolphram Alpha calls it 58.4

so much for significant figures.

You only get significant figures from significant search engines.

Re:Sig Figs

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I doubt it, why would a search engine not find 58.44 in a page that has 58.443? Unless you have exact search on, it will work fine.

First you need a semantic context

[davidwr]

Search58.44 and chemistry and you'll find what you are looking for a lot faster.

This will be much more useful if it allows for approximate numbers and widely-used but inaccurate numbers. "1.4 math" should return 7/5, sqrt(2), and a bunch of other things. "3.142857 and math" should return "22/7" and "approximate value of pi" and probably a lot more.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[The_mad_linguist]

Without units, it's pretty pointless. For example, 0.129 lbs is the weight of a mole of sodium. The possibility space of three-digit numbers is only 1000 entries, and saying that 129 is the weight of a mole of sodium in millipounds is another possible response.

So, basically, without units asking what a number means is pretty dumb.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[howlatthemoon]

I used 58.44 and molecular weight and all top ten hits told me what molecule I was dealing with. Same with 58.44 g/mol. You are right, numbers require context or 58.44 could be anything, and most of the time a generic search without units the context would be wrong. I am sure that I have used 58.44 outside the context of chemistry much more often than I have in it even though I spent many years in a molecular biology lab.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, but who does chemistry in lbs?

Re:First you need a semantic context

[treeves]

Strictly speaking you are correct, but as someone with a fair amount of chemistry experience, I'll say that the weight of a mole of X is always expressed as g or kg, even in the non-SI standard USA.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Anonymous Coward]

This will be much more useful if it allows for approximate numbers and widely-used but inaccurate numbers. "1.4 math" should return 7/5, sqrt(2), and a bunch of other things. "3.142857 and math" should return "22/7" and "approximate value of pi" and probably a lot more.

Wolfram Alpha suggests things like this if you just enter a number.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[nosfucious]

99.94 works just fine.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[OzPeter]

And /. is now the 2nd highest returned link. Pretty soon it will be #1 and we will have an infinite loop for searching for 58.44 - at which point the whole interweb may collapse to a singularity.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[sunderland56]

Exactly. You need a semantic context for text searches as well - if you google "mole", you are unlikely to find the chamistry term. Small furry animals and delicious mexican sauce are more popular than chemistry any day of the week.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Anonymous Coward]

58.44 grams works equally as well.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[AvitarX]

As someone with very little scientific experience. I would think the weight of something would be expressed as a force and not a mass.

The fact that the mass is much more relevant (for measuring quantities of things) is probably why scientists use g or kg rather than lbs or Newtons when measuring things (using balances rather than scales).

Of course this is my understanding from high-school science, someone more educated can probably correct/fill in.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Anonymous Coward]

It also returns this page.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Mothinator]

Not to an american chemical engineer. I frequently see things in lb-moles. The OP is a bit misleading. A lb-mole of NaCl is 58.44 lbs. A g-mole is 58.44 g. A kg-mole is 58.44 kg. The mole always needs to have a unit of mass in front of it, or it is useless. It is by convention that by "mole," we mean "g-mole."

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a physicist, not a chemist, but I don't get this. My understanding was that a mole is a dimensionless quantity, referring to a number of something. Having lb.moles or kg.moles would be bizarre, as it would introduce an unrelated unit (that of mass) into the definition of a mole. It would be like having different multiple definitions of the speed of light in a vacuum, one for each units system you care to use.

The only way to make sense of it would be to treat lb-mole, g-mole and kg-mole as three different dimensionless constants. But the terminology is confusing to say the least.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[DigitalCrackPipe]

I guess supplying context was so obvious to me that I didn't realize at first that these folks were dumb enough to leave it off. I've searched for numbers many times and always done just fine. Just like with text searches, if you don't like the first set of results put in a little more info to scope it.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Anonymous Coward]

Search58.44 and chemistry and you'll find what you are looking for a lot faster.

Haha. The second entry to that search is this article. Good work google ;)

Re:First you need a semantic context

[clone53421]

That's... bizarre.

A "mole" is a unit of mass defined as the molecular weight in grams. It's a fixed number of molecules... if you counted the number of molecules in 1 mole of anything, you'd get Avogadro's number, 6.02214179x10^23.

So...

58.44 g NaCl = 1 mole of NaCl
58.44 lb NaCl = 453.59237 moles of NaCl
58.44 kg NaCl = 1000 moles of NaCl

One of those is a mole, one is a kilomole (if such a unit exists, and if not, I made it up), and one of them is... just odd.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Mothinator]

yeah, well there are a lot of strange features in american engineering. So it's all based off of carbon. 12 g of carbon is a g-mole. 12 kg of carbon is a kg-mol (or kilomole). 12 lbs of carbon is a lb-mol. it might have something to do with the fact that the exact value of Avogadro's number wasn't known until the early 20th century. By that time, i think lb-mol was already established. Perrin (a french guy) figured out that a g-mol is 6.022E23. I think he chose to use grams because he was French.

Re:First you need a semantic context

[Mothinator]

One more thing....

Avogadro's number isn't some fundamental constant. It is just like a dozen. It just so happens that we chose a dozen to be 12 (or 13 or 11 depending on where you live).

It is 6.022E23 g-mol^-1 and 2.73E26 lb-mol^-1

Seems to work just fine

[gt6062b]

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[drainbramage]

Wolfram seems to have this covered too.
Interesting site.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=nacl

Re:Seems to work just fine

[apoc.famine]

Hell, even if you had the number, and needed to figure out what it was, WHO SEARCHES WITH NO CONTEXT?
 
Type that in and the word "chemistry", (the overwhelmingly vague content area you might have encountered that number in), and 58.44 shows up as sodium chloride with no problems.
 
Is this for the same people who type "cocks" into a search engine while looking for birds, and are shocked at the results? I was under the assumption that most people understood that search engines don't read minds...

Re:Seems to work just fine

[Rival]

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

Of course. We're fat and lazy and we don't like to actually do any, you know, work.

If I type 69, 42, 31337, 355/113, 2.71828, 9.8 or 6.023 into a search engine it should give me back some proper results. All those numbers are immediately recognizable to any card-carrying geek on the planet.. But what about the other less famous:

196.97
384,403
31,557,600
1073741824
299,792,458

Actually, those are pretty simple too. A google search should bring them up exactly.. But how about these:

9.19357
6.31002
206

Re:Seems to work just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but how often do you work on an equation of piece of old source code without having the slightest idea what it's for?

I mean, if you know *anything* about it (it's a chemistry equation, geometry problem, a trig function) then you have the information you need to get a useful search.

It's pretty unlikely you'll find some C function called "f" that returns some number, and need to search google with several parameter/result pairs to deduce the purpose of the function.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[InsertWittyNameHere]

HELP!! I'm stuck in an infinite loop!
When I google "58.44 science" it just brings me back to this page!

Re:Seems to work just fine

[Deanalator]

Sometimes, in your calculations (in physics class especially for me), you come across what seem to be magical numbers, and later realize it's something like e^5 or something weird like that. It has also been especially startling to me when certain numbers that appear are perfectly clean square or cube roots etc.

That's the strange thing about irrational numbers, there are only a few unique ones that are interesting. All the others are built from rational numbers, or other more interesting irrational numbers. I personally think this service would be pretty cool if done right.

I stopped after my undergraduate in math, so I don't really know, but is there any known way to take complicated combinations of more "elemental" irrational numbers (e, molarity, plank's constant, pi, etc) and break it back into it's elements WITHOUT having to enumerate every possibility? For example, if I show you 28.0282616... Is there some magical mathematical way to recognize that it's 17*sqrt(e)? I have met people that seem to be able to do that off the top of their head, but I can't imagine writing a straightforward algorithm to be able to do something like that.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

Wolfram alpha already does this. At least for common things like your example or sqrt(pi).

Re:Seems to work just fine

[gt6062b]

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

But you have context for all of these examples. What field are you studying, the name of the constant, even the fact that it is a constant are all context.

Your examples would all be better searches just by putting in "math" or "source code constant" as a way of narrowing the results. You wouldn't take the answer to an equation and go "aha, I'm got a 14 significant digit result, but I'll round it off to a number with lots of possible uses, no context, and see what I get." You wouldn't take "75.013895789014" as your result, put in 75.01, and expect a result. You'd either put in a number with few significant digits, multiple uses, and add context, or have a truly unique (to you) number.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[2obvious4u]

9.8 works just fine. But then again on Earth its the law.
6.67300 works as well.
So does 98.6.

Although -240, 365, 32 didn't work.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - seems to work just fine searching for "mole of sodium chloride in grams" and also works without the "in grams".

http://www.bing.com/search?q=mole+of+sodium+chloride+in+grams - works for Bing too.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=sodium+chloride+molecular+weight - also works.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=58.44+science - "58.44 science" 6th one down. Better results from google.

Why would anyone just type in a number and expect it to know that you want the molecular weight of NaCl? If you add a little bit of context to your search, it magically works.

You're missing the point. The purpose is to provide explanation for numbers which have no context. Presumably, if you're looking at some equation or source code which uses an unrecognized constant, or if a calculation returns a surprising result, one might be able to use such a search to find more information.

For example, let's say you're poking around with math and discover that 0.5^0.5 == 0.25^0.25 =~ 0.70710678118654752440084436210485. Is that irrational number significant somehow? What if you were only returned that result from some function -- would you recognize it as 1/sqrt(2), or sin(45)?

I'm not sure how necessary this capability is, exactly, but that is what they are trying to do.

Well, I put 0.70710678118654752440084436210485 and Math into google and came up with your post on /. Seems to work pretty well. QED

Re:Seems to work just fine

[b4dc0d3r]

If you search for the magic number and also add whatever context you DO know, the result should appear. If I'm doing digital signal processing, I'd look for the number and DSP, or acoustics or something like that. If it were optics, or whatever else, just add a word that applies. You would never find a magic number thrown in the middle of something and not be able to figure out what realm of knowledge it fits into. Especially something like source code - you probably know what the program does, so just add that as your search term.

What you're talking about is basically just a list of magical numbers. The speed of light, the cosmological constant, e, PI, sqrt(2) should just be in a big table, and probably already are in many textbooks. After that, if you're looking for mathematical representations like 17*sqrt(e), you're probably looking at some sort of algorithm. Financial algorithms notoriously (ab)use e, so knowing the representation as 17*sqrt(e) won't help you much. More importantly would be figuring out why they are looking for 17 of anything - and that knowledge relies on you understanding the underlying formula.

I just had this conversation (paraphrased) with my gf who professed that quadratic math is hard and illogical and doesn't make any sense. My reply was there is a formula or algorithm underlying everything, and if you can rearrange what you're looking at to fit one of the known formulae it suddenly becomes obvious how to solve it.

In summary: Knowing 17*sqrt(e) = 28.0282616 in a knowledge vacuum is unnecessary. Basically someone already did pre-calculation in order to optimize the calculation speed. Looking at how the number is used is far more useful than translating it into another context-free factoid.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[ortholattice]

Sometimes, in your calculations (in physics class especially for me), you come across what seem to be magical numbers, and later realize it's something like e^5 or something weird like that.

Try Inverse Symbolic Calculator. Entering 148.413159 returns 1484131591025766 = exp(5).

Re:Seems to work just fine

[mjensen]

But I feel what GP was saying is that just by providing 58.44 without context which one is it?
1. mole of sodium chloride in grams
2. the area of a circle with radius 4.313...
3. double 29.22
4. anything that could include a ratio of 3,13,or 149 in any combination (factors of 5844)

And I think a more precise number for mole of sodium chloride is 58.443, so what level of precision is required to get what result????

Re:Seems to work just fine

[ceoyoyo]

There are an infinite number of ways to make 0.707.... Is the search engine supposed to return all of them? Which ones? What about other numbers... there are an infinite number of them too.

Besides pure math problems, there are lots of other numbers, like the example, the molar mass of salt (the average, actually). Those ones are MUCH more useful. When you type 58.44 into Google it does exactly what it should: it tries to find pages with 58.44 on them. If you don't get what you want it's because you haven't been specific enough. If I search for "58.44 molar mass", or "58.44 g/mol" I get just what I want. If I search for "salt" I do NOT get the molar mass. So much for the search engine being magically better with words than with numbers.

"Semantic," "context" and "numbers" along with "on the Internet" is a pretty nice little combination of keywords and nothing more.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[ceoyoyo]

No. If you limit it to multiplication it's called factoring. It's even harder to do with the set of real numbers than it is to do with integers, and it's pretty darn hard to do with integers. It's even harder to do if you allow operations other than multiplication.

Plus it's not really that useful. If you want to get any real meaning out of it you can't just take some random result and notice "hey, it's 17*sqrt(e)!" You have to look back at the calculation that produced it and figure out why.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[UltimApe]

http://www20.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=one+mole+of+sodium+chloride - this is the best answer imho.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why programming languages allow us to put in comment.

Re:Seems to work just fine

[jhol13]

How about 7408?

I bet there are people here who do not need a search for that ...

Re:Seems to work just fine

[markov_chain]

69 might be recognizable but would definitely be unknown!

Hitchhiker's Guide?

[R2.0]

So, put in the (numerical) answer and it gives you the question?

Thank God Douglass Adams didn't know about this.

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide?

[GundamFan]

forgive me but I don't remember the actual quote but it goes something like this:

"Some say that if the answer and the question where known at the same time that the univers would be destroyed and replaced with one far stranger. Some say this has already happened."

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual quote:

âoeThere is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.â

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide?

[Dishevel]

Never "kinda quote" Douglass Adams on /.

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide?

[lumenistan]

This is slashdot, so nitpicking is called for when you get to a subject as holy as Douglas Adams. He only had one s in his first name. His parents weren't bestselling authors and so could only afford a single 's'.
Of course, I do see a Wheel of Fortune "Before and After" puzzle here: Frederick D_uglass Adams.

Re:Hitchhiker's Guide?

[ezzzD55J]

first sensible post i've seen in this crazy story :)

okey dokey

[Nyall]

Sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

Re:okey dokey

[sdpuppy]

More like it's getting into Jeopardy...

Re:okey dokey

[Pollardito]

a sodium chloride solution specifically

42

[edalytical]

Need I say more?

Wikipedia

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up any number there, and if it's meaningful in some way you'll find it.

Re:Wikipedia

[RichardDeVries]

Exactly.

Is this a joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

How often do you have a number without units? Putting in "58.44g" returns NaCl, sodium chloride, or molecular weight in every one of the first page results.

not really useful?

[Farlan]

To me this doesnt look like theres a real need to do this. A lot of research has gone into getting a bunch of 0s and 1s organized in a way that can represent text. It appears counter-intuitive to go back to numbers... why dont they just do a wiki?

Works in Google

[GarbanzoBean]

Type "what is 58.44" without quotes into google and you'll get all 10 answers on first page that are relevant. Someone just doesn't know how to do searches.

Re:Works in Google

[Shados]

This.

In recent years, Google's "parser" was tweaked to get semantics from natural language constructs...so often, typing your question is the best way to get search in Google.

A few months back, someone at work was asking me for how to implement something specific in Java... Not having done any java in several years, I copy and pasted her question, word for word (no editing or cleanup) in google, and the answer came up as the very first search result.

When I asked her what she searched for, she tried to be too clever: she would search for specific keywords, instead of searching for her question, which would have worked fine in the Google of several years ago, but not with the Google of today. You're now better off "asking" Google what you want, and it will understand better.

Searching for just 58.44 will make google search for those numbers, and potentially even have it ignore the period. Not good.

Re:Works in Google

[AvitarX]

I'm pretty sure google treats punctuation as a space and puts quotes around the adjacent words.

It can make searching for certain things very difficult.

This is really stupid.

[StellarFury]

Why in the hell would I want to search for a number with no context? Who thinks that way? Everyone remembers the concept, not the number.

You say "3.14" and people know it as pi. But if you said "pi," people would say "3.14." This example is only interesting because it's widespread.

Nobody would start with "58.44" and say "Hmmm, what does that symbolize?" No. They need to know the molecular weight of sodium chloride, and so they'll search Google for "molecular weight sodium chloride" and turn up the number 58.44. We're not computers, we know semantic context, and need numbers. Not the other way around.

Though I guess this sort of thing might be useful for some sort of numerical AI, who has numbers but no semantic context. Time to don the tinfoil hats, fellows.

Re:This is really stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not computers, we know semantic context, and need numbers. Not the other way around.

Often, when studying a system of some kind, you encounter seemingly "random" constants. For instance suppose you kept getting the number 1.618 as the ratio between two quantities. Instead of dismissing this, you might actually look up this number and find that it's extremely close to the Golden Ratio. That would probably cause you to spend a lot more effort examining the system to figure out why this interesting constant is appearing in your measurements.

I'm not sure I understand your argument that somebody who wants the mol-weight of NaCl would not type in the value 58.44. Of course they wouldn't -- what they know is 58.44, and what they need to find out is what this number means.

Suppose you are measuring noise on a transmission line and you find an interesting band of noise at some particular central frequency. Maybe this noise is generated by some physical phenomenon that somebody in the world has already studied. Plugging this frequency into a search engine might be a good way to find out what's going on and get you a long way toward solving your shielding issues.

Re:This is really stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

The context in which this kind of thing makes sense is mathematics (and the fields to which it has the most direct application). Many people have heard of The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences where you can search for a particular sequence to find out more about what's known about it, but less well-known is the Inverse Symbolic Calculator where you can look up individual real numbers.

Re:This is really stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the hell would I want to search for a number with no context? Who thinks that way?

TV Detectives investigating the death of a Chemistry Prof. would find this tool invaluable...

Re:This is really stupid.

[Anonymusing]

Mmmm.... pi.

Re:This is really stupid.

[CodeBuster]

Why in the hell would I want to search for a number with no context? Who thinks that way?

Politicians?

Numerologic web

[gmuslera]

Whats next? Astrological web?

420 comes up correctly! :)

[Ron Bennett]

For the number 420, Wikipedia's Cannabis information page comes up #1 in both google and bing.

Re:420 comes up correctly! :)

[roger_that]

But what about 42? (Don't panic if it fails)

Re:420 comes up correctly! :)

[Anonymous Coward]

For the number 420, Wikipedia's Cannabis information page comes up #1 in both google and bong.

  There, fixed that for you.

35484.32384

[Anonymous Coward]

3494.13
332
8494.354
2324.234

Hahaha, I kill me sometimes.

Get it? 332 ... 3494.13 -> 8494.354 ?

Man, that is too funny!

Re:35484.32384

[aynoknman]

It is 2 funny

Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[greenguy]

1. Eleventeen
2. 867-5309
3. 451
4. 1999
5. a gazillion
6. THIS MANY (holding up three fingers)
7. infinity minus one
8. approximately
9. 9/11 (may already be taken)
10. Top ten

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[R2.0]

"2. 867-5309"

Have phone companies started issuing that number again?

Oh, and from Wikipedia:

"Brown University transferred the number to Gem Plumbing & Heating,[9] a local business. In 2002, Gem began using the number in advertising campaigns both in Rhode Island and in eastern Massachusetts (area code 617). Gem trademarked the number in 2005.

In 2006, Benjamin Franklin Franchising LLC, a large national plumbing firm, began using a toll-free version of the number (+1-866-867-5309). In 2007, Gem brought suit against Clockwork Home Services, the parent company of Benjamin Franklin Franchising, alleging a violation of its trademark. Clockwork contended that Gem's trademark was invalid. Effective in May 2007, Clockwork was ordered by a court to stop using the number in New England.[10][11]

The number in several area codes has been listed on eBay for sale.[12]

In July 2009, a Pennsylvania company had the number assigned to a Vonage phone line in the name of a small business, and then listed the entire business for sale on eBay[13], possibly allowing them to avoid the general rule amongst wireline telephone companies that numbers are the property of the carrier and may not be sold -- which is why earlier attempts failed.[14]"

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about this number? 634-5789

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[OzPeter]

There was an interesting segment on NPR a few months ago about people who had been issued this number (or requested it)

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[autocracy]

Sorry, I own 0.8181818181 already. You can't have it.

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[isd.bz]

A quick search at the USPTO reveals that Dick Cheney and Rudi Giuliani beat you to the 9th item on the list.

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[Petrushka]

Twelvety!

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[Danny Rathjens]

Apparently this is why we got the Pentium, Pentium Pro, et. al. Intel discovered they couldn't trademark or copyright a number so instead of the 586 after the 486 we got the Pentium.

Re:Note to self: patent the following numbers...

[clone53421]

That is clearly a derivative form of
  __
0.81

Wolfram alpha?

[BigDXLT]

Sounds like something wolfram alpha should do.

What's the problem?

[oldhack]

So Bing apparently works and is superior to Google.

Sounds like Marchex

[Animats]

Marchex is a "domaining" company. They're the people behind those "What you need, when you need it" ad-heavy landing pages. They tried to buy up all the 5-digit number domains. (So did others; nobody got all of them.) This sounds like a similar idea, only less profitable.

Thank goodness my numbers are safe

[UnknowingFool]

When I searched "1234" on google and bing, the top results are about that Feist song. Thank goodness it doesn't mention anything about it being my root admin password and my luggage combination--hey! Where did my bag go? It was just here, and why is there a sudden spike in my internet tra#%^W&*s%!$AF{:

---[CONNECTION LOST]---

Re:Thank goodness my numbers are safe

[sconeu]

When I searched "1234" on google and bing, the top results are about that Feist song. Thank goodness it doesn't mention anything about it being my root admin password and my luggage combination

Well, duh... that's because your luggage combo is 12345.

Re:Thank goodness my numbers are safe

[R2.0]

If "12345" doesn't bring up Spaceballs, it's a fail.

(Oh God - I've contracted net-speak from my kids. Is there a cure?)

Re:Thank goodness my numbers are safe

[93 Escort Wagon]

When I searched "1234" on google and bing, the top results are about that Feist song. Thank goodness it doesn't mention anything about it being my root admin password and my luggage combination--hey! Where did my bag go? It was just here, and why is there a sudden spike in my internet tra#%^W&*s%!$AF{:

---[CONNECTION LOST]---

That's why i use "1235" - it throws the hackers and thieves off.

Re:Thank goodness my numbers are safe

[martas]

when you type 1234, it just shows up as ****

Re:Thank goodness my numbers are safe

[forkazoo]

When I searched "1234" on google and bing, the top results are about that Feist song. Thank goodness it doesn't mention anything about it being my root admin password and my luggage combination--hey! Where did my bag go? It was just here, and why is there a sudden spike in my internet tra#%^W&*s%!$AF{:

---[CONNECTION LOST]---

Sir, the joke is said as "CARRIER LOST"

Really, kids today have no respect for tradition.

Google Works Fine

[shma]

Their example fails because they chose a number that has no significance on its own without including a unit of measurement. If you search 58.44 grams, instead of just the number, you get plenty of relevant results. And look at what happens if you take a famous unitless number from chemistry and do a google search. Again, plenty of good results.You can try it with the speed of light as well. A search for 3x10^8 yields nothing, but 3x10^8 m/s gives you the Wikipedia page for Speed Of Light. And as far as I can tell, Google gives you good results for useful numbers in Mathematics like the golden ratio. So I don't see what the problem is.

wrong, there are no problems

[iggymanz]

Put in "58.44 moles" and you'll have proper answers in the top ten, putting in units makes all the difference for number searches.

And as for dimensionless numbers, 3.14149 gives wikipedia article for pi, 2.71828 gives wikipedia for e as top answer, even "square root -1" gives i.

Absolutely false the premise or conclusion of this article. Searching for numbers gives useful information

Re:wrong, there are no problems

[vvildcard]

Better still... Search for: "58.44 g" and you'll get perfect results.

1 letter of context makes all the difference... and, as stated before, anyone who expects valid results from an otherwise arbitrary number is an idiot.

Google is not a mind reader (nor is any other inferior search engine, for that matter)... It works for non-arbitrary numbers (like Pi and e) because those numbers are exponentially more common. If the number of g/mol for salt suddenly became an extremely important number, so much so that it was required for every math/physics class from Middle School up, then guess what? It would suddenly start showing more results in searches. But it's not an extremely important number, so it's all going to end up moot.

Worthless article about a worthless project.

A new tag?

[scorp1us]

Seems that we'd need a "measurement" element, with a quantity and a unit. Then your browser can render the m/s as it wants to.For instance units of a circle (degrees or radians) can be rendered as the number or graphically.

Of course, this opens a can of issues in expressing equasions, because X could be a quantity too. Expressing <term><<measurement quantity="1" units="m"><over><measurement quantity="1" units="s"></term> would probably be more helpful as now you can look for relationships as well.

Re:A new tag?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why Server-side LaTeX extensions were born.
There are a fair bunch of extensions from a simple Google

In the very near future when more browsers support <canvas>, a simple JavaScript library could convert pseudo-tags in the same way on the client-side so there is no need for server-side crap.
The pseudo-tags could be something like <span language="latex"> for the parent container, then use a type attribute in child containers for expressing commands.
OR, you could use terminating tags since i believe that is valid HTML, terminating nothing should really have no effect on any flow. (logically)
Example being <span language="latex"></twocolumn></span> (As you can see, i Googled and clicked the first LaTeX command that came under my cursor :) )
It might take a little getting used to since it is the opposite slash being used in this case, but that is what learning is about.
Also, it might possibly collide with current or future HTML, but that shouldn't matter if everything is terminated correctly :)

Who

[Anonymous Coward]

CARES!

Not sure of usefulness

[reginaldo]

Using numerics in search phrase construction just seems like it would screw up the results regardless. It would be similar to constructing search phrases using multiple foreign languages at the same time. Even when searching scientific journals, I use common nomenclature rather than specific values.

Irony?

[blackraven14250]

I find it ironic that the 'net is good with words and not with number, as numbers are what it's based on.

Re:Irony?

[Pollardito]

The fact that computers are based on numbers is part of the reason it's hard to be good at this, since numbers are used to represent anything and everything. Numbers sometimes aren't really even "amounts" they can be ASCII codes or addresses, so if you give me 58.44 how do I know that's not just ":.," or room #44 on floor #58 (or room #68 on floor #88 from hex). Numbers are meaningless without context. Even the phone numbers that we use every day would be unrecognizable without specific formatting and/or a standard length to give them context.

Step 1, indeed

[bughunter]

Sounds to me like the Underpants Gnomes have found their niche on the internets.

unnecessary

[luftrofl]

It's really not hard to put in the SI prefixes- most of them are letters found on a U.S. keyboard and the others are easily inserted with a word processor.

How disappointing.

[geminidomino]

Google obviously fails. A search for "12345" had exactly ZERO hits to Scroob's luggage OR Druidia's Air Shield.

What kind of fly-by-night company are you running there, guys?!

Re:How disappointing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Search for "1 2 3 4 5" idiot. There are 5 numbers, not one.

Re:How disappointing.

[colinrichardday]

I just did that. A Spaceballs reference was fifth out of some 11 billion results.

Re:How disappointing.

[geminidomino]

Search for "1 2 3 4 5" idiot. There are 5 numbers, not one.

Taking the joke a little personally, aren't you, AC?

Don't worry. Your mommy will come hug you when she finishes sucking dick for crack.

Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[schnablebg]

I have had this need when reverse engineering and debugging algorithms in software. There are magic numbers in the formulas and I have no idea what they mean.

Additionally, if something like this was rolled into a more generalized search algorithm, it could be used the other way around. Google could know, for example, that a paper with the number 58.44 a lot of times is probably about NaCl even if it is not mentioned explicitly.

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[ImOnlySleeping]

But in the case provided, you would have no reason to know that number but not know what the molecule is. I can't even think of a situation where you would be looking for a molar mass and it didn't matter what the molecule was that had that mass. The reason search engines don't work backwards is the same reason the period table of the elements doesn't work that way either. You wouldn't just have a number in mind and expect the atomic mass or electronegativity or oxidation state or melting point or radius or atomic number to jump out at you. There are relationships, but you're looking for a specific element's properties.

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[JMZero]

I see plenty of magic numbers in code - but most of them are just arbitrary failures, or sentinels, or tweaked constants. A search engine wouldn't have anything to say about those.

The few magic numbers I could think of that are meaningful - like for example c704dd7b (used in CRC) - are long and widely used enough to already come up with fine results in Google.

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[Dutch Gun]

Seeing lots of magic numbers in code indicates a failure of good programming practices, not the need for a new high-tech system to decode those numbers. This really seems like a solution in search of a problem.

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had this need when reverse engineering and debugging algorithms in software. There are magic numbers in the formulas and I have no idea what they mean.

Oh, yes. My .vimrc contains the constant 2551443 -- ask Google for it. Then, ask Google for "2551443 seconds".

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[avandesande]

Using the molecular weight of a molecule instead of its name or even atomic number would be considered extremely bad form. I do agree though with your first reason.

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[NonSequor]

I have had this need when reverse engineering and debugging algorithms in software. There are magic numbers in the formulas and I have no idea what they mean.

Additionally, if something like this was rolled into a more generalized search algorithm, it could be used the other way around. Google could know, for example, that a paper with the number 58.44 a lot of times is probably about NaCl even if it is not mentioned explicitly.

Sorry, you're out of luck there. Magic numbers work because they're actually magical. Sorry to burst your bubble if you still believe in things like algorithms and the tooth fairy.

Did you honestly believe that computers worked by interpreting a series of logical instructions input by a mortal human being? Trust me. When you're ready to understand you won't need to search.

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[jesset77]

Seeing lots of magic numbers in code indicates a failure of good programming practices, not the need for a new high-tech system to decode those numbers.

Er, but if you are trying to refactor such terrible code written by your predecessor, then yeah, you'll want to know what those numbers are about, and a new high tech system may be just the trick. :P

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[gknoy]

Sometimes you don't know what the magic number is supposed to represent. It's sitting there, uncommented in some code that you're trying to troubleshoot, and you don't know (a) why, (b) what units it's in, and (c) whether it's an important constant or just an engineer's SWAG.

I was once working on some code which had the number 3443.9 in it. What does that represent? The variable name "a", or something similarly inscrutable. Googling for 3443, I found nothing. I knew it was a distance, and so I decided to start assuming it was in units. Google is awesome, as I can google for 3443 X:

3443 miles: Nothing of significance
3443 kilometers: Nothing
3443 nautical miles: The radius of the earth. Awesome!

So, being able to easily find what a number represents is great, especially when you don't always know what the units are or what role that value plays in an equation.

Re:Reverse Engineering and Better Search

[Dutch Gun]

Er, but if you are trying to refactor such terrible code written by your predecessor, then yeah, you'll want to know what those numbers are about, and a new high tech system may be just the trick. :P

True, that. I suppose other industries are based on worst-case scenarios. I still think it's a bit of a stretch for this to be founded as a stand-alone enterprise. If you're going to be a one-trick pony, it needs to be a pretty damn good trick. This sounds more like a side-project for Google or Microsoft.

Hmm, I wonder if they're just hoping they'll get bought out by one of those two for the technology and /or any applicable patents?

Finally there's more to it than 23

[Anonymous Coward]

True#: The company that makes it possible to be obsessed with numbers different from 23:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Number_23

Backward Forward HO!

[mindbrane]

The ancient Greeks, remember Pythagoras, saw numbers as things, and, IIRC, used their alphabet to represent numbers. Then came the cumbersome Roman numerical system and, finally, more or less, the Arabic which may have been derived from Indian, Sanskrit sources. OK, so history aside, why bother. Because as far back as the first flicker of the enlightenment commentators have been suggesting Science would become the new religion. If a religion is seen as 'the book', or, the canon cementing a civilization together than it becomes convenient and, perhaps, even necessary that symbols pop up everywhere. If e were everywhere, which it is kinda, then science, or, the sciences may become more tractable to more people. This is gonna happen anyway, but will it induce in true believers the criticality crucial to the methodology of science? My best guess is no, most people are happily submerged in their limbic motivations and drives and live wet lives blissfully out of touch with the arduous work of critical thinking. It's been recently suggested that intelligence stems from associational pathways. Wild extrapolation allows one to posit that while science symbols made ubiquitous would help people better immerse themselves in the new story driven by science theory, and, more especially evolution theory; it won't help foster critical thought.

3.14159

[Anonymous Coward]

... is an approximation of pi. To be more precise one should say: 3.14159265358979323846[..]
[here is were I would post the entire 50-row long representation of pi courtesy of wolfram alpha]

  But ./ says: "Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there."

This place and all is paranoia is getting more silly than a republican convention.

Where?

[davidwr]

The weight of a mole of sodium varies by location. In most of the universe the weight of anything is almost zero.

He's right, you know

[imadork]

I typed "12345" into Google, and Google did not know that was the combination to my luggage.

Re:He's right, you know

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the combination to your luggage shows up like this to google:

google.com/search?*****

Meanwhile, if I type "*****" into google, you see:

google.com/search?12345

mole

[AliasMarlowe]

If the search term includes "mole" as well as "58.44", the first few pages of google results are almost all for stoichiometry of NaCl. Nuff said, Google works.

Re:mole

[Entropic Alchemist]

Yes, but if you know that the number refers to a number of moles then that defeats the point of the search. The idea is to be able to search for numbers with no context.

I find it humorous...

[FiloEleven]

...that as others have pointed out, pretty much any useful number search can be done with existing search engines. Meanwhile, a Google search for "true#" turns up nothing relevant.

This is why we don't put funny characters in our company names, kids.

Web search works just fine ..

[roguegramma]

http://www.google.com/search?q=58.44+chemistry returns the result as hit 3 and hits before that are related too.

Sounds like the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences

[OfficeSupplySamurai]

This sounds a lot like the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences.

That site labels and stores integer sequences for easy lookup, and will let you simply search for a subsequence to find the one you're looking for. This proposed site keeps track of numbers instead and incorporates more than the pure math that the sequence encyclopedia limits itself to, but it sounds very similar in concept.

NaCl Mole?

[xoundmind]

That's a mole of sodium chloride, in grams, for the curious.

Can we at least have some pumpkin seed in that too?

Google 69 and you will be surprised Shocked IN AWE

[Anonymous Coward]

Google 69 and you will be surprised Shocked IN AWE Fell outta my chair onto the floor I was laughing so hard

what about brain first?

[azgard]

"Clearly, we haven't figured out how to make the Web work for numbers in the same way it does for words."

We haven't figured that out even for our brain!

Try to use good value and not approximate

[Anonymous Coward]

Google 58.443 and second result is "How to prove that the formula mass of NaCl is 58.443 (+- 0.002) g/mol?"

Starting Point: XKCD

[odin84gk]

If it is anything like this, then I might be interested: http://xkcd.com/526/

666

[alvieboy]

Funny enough, if I do search in Bing for that I get a Japanese page as first hit, and second a Wikipedia page depicting.... "666 is the natural number following 665 and preceding 667". This was actually what I was looking for, not any number of the beast... Sorry google, you're a fail.

We could pay this company, OR

[wowbagger]

The 1990's called, and they want their business models back (if they'll give me my 401K back it's a deal!)

So, we can either:

1. Pay this company money to create a link from a number on my web page to their page, where full details live,

2. or

3. Define an open XML namespace which we can pull in to describe a number, something like this:

   <sn:number_use fields="chemistry" description="molecular weight of NaCl" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaCl">58.44</sn:number_use>

   and have something we can use free of charge.

Hmmmm. I wonder which one will win out.

Does anybody else see the family resemblance to the CueCat business model here?

   

I can't believe you people

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we are in a world with "Let me Google That For You" and you guys are actively pissing and moaning about this thing? Here, let me put your Google-fu to the test. Tell me the significance of the number 656.2. Yes, it's pretty damn significant. (If you know it off the top of your head please don't answer).

I bet it takes you more than a few minutes to figure it out. You know what that means? It means your Google-fu SUCKS. And you seem to be rejecting a new tool that would help your Google-fu not suck so bad. I don't get you people.

Re:I can't believe you people

[clone53421]

656.2 feet = 200 metres, and I'm sure 200 metres is quite significant in many, many ways.

Re:I can't believe you people

[Anonymous Coward]

Not what I was thinking of, but I applaud your creativity in trying some unit conversions. However, if you had a "numerical" search engine, I'm pretty sure the thing I'm thinking of would appear in the top three or four results.

Re:I can't believe you people

[clone53421]

Actually I typed "what is 656.2" and the 3rd result had (200 m) in parentheses.

At that point I figured the signal-to-noise ratio was going to be quite low...

Re:I can't believe you people

[clone53421]

Pretty sure I found it, though... 656.2 nm, wavelength pertaining to hydrogen & stars.

Plouffe's inverter

[Anonymous Coward]

Plouffe inverter will give you a formula for your number, though it doesn't do physical constants.

Hello World

[esten]

Numbers have context without anything else. I guess that means if I search:

01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 00100000 01010111 01101111 01110010 01101100 01100100 00100001 00100000

I should get the first words of every novice programmer.

Re:Hello World

[clone53421]

What's with that extra 00100000 at the end?

Re:Hello World

[I'm not really here]

You gotta be excited about saying this in binary!

Sounds like

[Daenks]

something out of THX 1138

Do you have to turn your monitor upside-down

[JoshDM]

when you Google for 58008 ?

two bad examples

[Ancient_Hacker]

Using 3.14159 and 58.44, those are particularly poor examples.

First, the value of pi can't be written down exactly, in fact the term "pi" is the shortest and best, so that's not a good example.

And the gm/M of table salt isn't too keen an example either-- that number is going to vary depending on the isotopic composition of the sodium and chlorine.

So maybe "pi" and "table salt" are already good semantic descriptors.

Re:two bad examples

[ceoyoyo]

" in fact the term "pi" is the shortest and best"

Actually, the greek character called pi is one character shorter and quite a bit better since it can't be confused with p * i. We were talking about writing things down, right?

Also, 58.44 g/mol is the average molar mass of salt, taking into account natural abundancies of sodium and chlorine isotopes.

Related problem

[hcdejong]

One reason a Google search for 58.44 turns up so much crap is the non-adjustable punctuation filter Google uses. AFAIK, you can't search for the exact phrase '58.44' and have it exclude IP addresses that contain *.58.44.*

Re:Related problem

[sexconker]

I fucking HATE how Google ignores my quotes.

If I put something in quotes, then I mean EXACTLY that.

8008135

[foo fighter]

I've got your semantic context for numbers right here.

Re:8008135

[swanzilla]

Nicely played...I cannot see a 5-function calculator without plugging in 5318008 and turning that sucker upside down.

INCORRECT USAGE

[Anonymous Coward]

"Begs the question" is not a synonym for "raises the question".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[pjt33]

I'm sure you've heard the one about the linguist who was walking across campus with his girlfriend when they saw six descriptivists beating up a prescriptivist. She turned to him in horror and asked, "Aren't you going to help?"

"No," he replied, "I think six is enough."

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[Anonymous Coward]

The real definition for "begs the question" is bad because it has nothing to do with either begging or questions. They should rename the fallacy to something more logical and get on with their lives.

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[Hatta]

Be sure to tell this joke next time someone complains about people calling their computer tower a "hard drive" and their monitor the "computer". Technical terms have meanings, encouraging ignorant people to use them incorrectly isn't good for anyone.

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[AvitarX]

Wouldn't it be better to properly translate petitio principii rather than argue over the meaning of english words?

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[Tumbleweed]

"Begs the question" is not a synonym for "raises the question".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question

Nicely done. Pedantic-Man(tm) approves!

Remember, kids, pedantry is its own reward.

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[idontgno]

"'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' 'But 'glory' doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected. 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less.'

Welcome to Slashdot, Mr. Dumpty

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[Petrushka]

The real definition for "begs the question" is bad because it has nothing to do with either begging or questions.

• Beg, v. 2. transf. To ask as a favour or act of grace.
• Question, n. I. That which is inquired about, discussed, or debated.

Hence, to "beg" a "question" is to "ask, as a favour, the matter being discussed". (That's not even a secondary meaning of "question"; it's the core meaning of the word.) The phrase does exactly what it says on the tin.

Conversely, the misinterpretation of the phrase, as "to imply a question that should be asked", requires a bizarre interpretation of "beg" which I invariably find confusing. Since when does "beg" mean "imply"? or "imply that something be asked"? Are beggars people who go around implying things? (Well, maybe in some places ...)

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[pjt33]

I'm actually neither a pure prescriptivist nor a pure descriptivist. Some words or phrases I care about, and others I don't. But people who claim that to use the phrase "to beg the question" as a transitive verb is incorrect because it has a technical meaning when used as an intransitive verb get my goat. No-one would object to the transitive phrase "to demand the question", and nor would they call it a technical phrase, so to substitute one word in it with a synonym can hardly be incorrect.

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[SlashWombat]

Technical terms have meanings, encouraging ignorant people to use them incorrectly isn't good for anyone.

Really? The one that pisses me of is how quantum has come to mean something truly big, where its original usage is something incredibly small!

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[mqduck]

"Begs the question" is not a technical term.

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[pjt33]

"Circular argument" is probably better than a literal translation.

Re:INCORRECT USAGE

[stdarg]

From m-w.com:
beg
2 a : to ask earnestly for : entreat b : to require as necessary or appropriate

The definition in part b) can be taken for "imply" I think.

In any case, "X begs the question, Y?" could be interpreted as "The acceptance of X demands that we earnestly ask the question Y" or "Given X, it's necessary or appropriate to address Y".

I don't see the problem when you get down to the definitions of the constituent words. It's only a problem because the entire phrase "begs the question" already has a meaning.

How about conversion?

[hcdejong]

I've long been looking for a browser plugin that will convert any numbers and units it finds on a Webpage and replaces them with SI equivalents. Come to think of it, you wouldn't need tagging for that: convertible numbers will invariably have a relevant unit symbol next to them.

There are a few similar things out there

[John Sokol]

http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/ This is huge.

http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Real-Numbers-J-Borwein/dp/0534128408 A Dictionary of Real Numbers (Hardcover)

The meaning of life the universe and everything

[james.nogler]

if that is equal to 42 then why can't 58.44 being something equally as meanningful o thats right, that came from a piece of fiction where the rediculas is constantly expounded

.digits

[DorkRawk]

I started a small project for something similar to this. It's called .digits and the idea is that every number is the answer to something. It's sort of a fun idea and people can submit new facts, check it out: digits.dinosaurseateverybody.com

I did read the original

[mschuyler]

and all these responses. OK, sorta cool, I guess. But I don't understand how someone is going to make money on this.

Numbers without context are meaningless

[Thaelon]

That's because numbers without context are completely meaningless.

Here's proof by examples:

29A would scare a lot of people were it to magically appear on their bathroom mirror overnight, but only if written differently. That alone is sufficient proof for me that numerology is stupid, and that superstition is all in your head. You'll never hear a profit talking about 29A.

52 is at the heart of a lot of not-so-inside jokes. That is, if you first convert it from octal.

0 is the true/good/success in *nix, not so much for your bank account.

This is why they're called "magic numbers" in programming, without sufficient context, they're utterly meaningless. readline(37.4); seems pretty magical to me when it makes the program work correctly. Hence, 37 must be magical. That is unless it relates to your fiancée.

Re:Numbers without context are meaningless

[RoccamOccam]

Quite. I googled "gram" and none of the top results mentioned sodium chloride. Something needs to be done about that.

solution in search of a problem

[speedtux]

This sounds like one of those gee-whiz attempts to capitalize on current buzzwords.

plouffe's inverter

[Garble Snarky]

someone should tell them about plouffe's inverter, it already does what they want.

5.58880653

[bobs666]

58.44 is nothing, as is 5.58880653.
Unless you add the units.
58.44 grams = 5.58880653 ounces.
Grade school Science class will teach you this.
In science a number without its units is nonsense.
Pi = 3.14159 is a ratio and thus has no units.

So try your google search with units.
And low and behold bingo it matches.

Unless we miss the point.
Let not start searching for salt.

Re:Sounds like the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequenc

[Anonymous Coward]

But this new thing is more like the Inverse Symbolic Calculator which has been useful (if obscure) for a long time.

domains

[Satanboy]

"Clearly, we haven't figured out how to make the Web work for numbers in the same way it does for words"

isn't that why they invented domain controllers?

Oh, a nice service for math..

[Seth Kriticos]

Ok, I can fathom that maths people will like this service.

I can understand it (you guessed it, I love vim), but I wonder if the general public will get the excitement about this amazing new service..

Anyway, it sure will have it's solid audience in the maths nerd society, so don't interpret my words as ironic (or even cynic).

This is just in:

[Hurricane78]

New company seeks to bring semantic context to semantic context markup.

Just add the <new-company-semantic-framework-framework:semantic-context new-company-semantic-framework-framework:content-descriptor-file="/content-descriptors/sub.server.tld/tagname-tagid.content-descriptor.xml"> tag in that exact format around every tag in your page, and provide separate content description files of less than 100 lines for them, and you're good!

49152

[Prototerm]

If you recognize that number, it means you're older than dirt in Internet Years. Hint #1: That's C000 in Hexadecimal. Hint #2: it's associated with the Commodore 64.

God, I need to get a life!

Re:49152

[rkit]

It also means you were very likely using a freeware assembler that used decimal labels. Those were the days...

Re:49152

[VanessaE]

Or you needed to mix BASIC and assembly, or otherwise need some place to store a up to 4K of data (screens, sprites, more code, whatever) that was safe from BASIC and practically everything else that goes on inside a C64.

Maybe I've been a little particular about what I use to code with, but after 20 years, I've never run into an assembler, commercial or freeware, that wouldn't take decimal wherever another base was expected.

Re:49152

[rkit]

My point was that these tools did not support anything else than decimal. I started coding in assembler with a assembler/dissassemler tool written in BASIC. My sister's boyfriend had entered the listing from a book. It did not even use files, it was reading and writing directly from and to memory.

would have been useful for Leonhard Euler

[rkit]

...when he tried to find a closed formula for sum(1/n^2). It is said that his first attempt at the problem was to compute some digits and see if he could recognize the emerging pattern. However, this approach was not successful so he had to find another way. Today, you can simply enter 1.6449340668 into Wolfram Alpha, and find pi^2/6 as a suggestion. Cool.

!semitic tag

[glwtta]

Some numbers have a Semitic context: 613, for example.

Re:!semitic tag

[Anonymous Coward]

A classy response to the dumbest slashdot tag I've seen.

Please....

[Anonymous Coward]

google "chemistry 58.44" you'll find what you are looking for. Context is everything if you provide no context then expect to get a wide array of garbage. This is just annoying...

exact

[avandesande]

Bonus points for you if you type in the exact value of pi .

Re:exact

[clone53421]

4 arctan(1)

Google had my number

[Skapare]

2635622779696759818963956926355997625653382829357706805515232 / 838944787028681613144502774660896402692975681322322888764935

I have lots of better ones. But they'd probably break Slashdot to post them.

Re:Sounds like the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequenc

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it also cover stuff that's not as well known as Fibonacci? Sequences like: 1-2-3-4-5, 6-7-8-9-10, 11-12.

useful how?

[Anonymous Coward]

this will finally come in handy when they introduce phone a friend to jeopardy.
me: 'hey, i only have 30 seconds, but the question is: 58.44?'
friend: 'hold on, let me google it...oh yes, there it is...'
me: 'what is a mole of salt?'
alex: 'oooh, i'm sorry, you forgot to metion grams'

Burp

[Anonymous Coward]

There once was a singing group called The Avocados. They liked to bite the heads off small furry animals. Sometimes they dipped them in chocolate sauce first.

So you can imagine the response when, at the American Chemistry Union's convention we saw Avocado's number which consisted of eating a mole in mole.

200 billion digits

[Skapare]

Why piddle around with a mere 50 rows. Go for 200 BILLION digits (100 million per each of 2000 downloads).

Numbers do not have semantic content.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because 19670108 is my birthday does not mean the number 19,670,108 has any special meaning. It is just a number. 3.14159 is just a number pi has semantic content since we are specifically referring to the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. 3.14159 just happens to be an approximation of that value in decimal notation but, even that value itself is just a number it has no meaning outside the number system. If a person weighed 314.159 pounds would it have some significance. Other than the fact that the would be grossly overweight. This is a meaningless project.

dumb

[whong09]

Numbers and meaning don't enjoy a one to one relationship. 58.44 might be the gram mass of a mole of sodium chloride but it also could be a number of other things. The gram mass of a mole of sodium chloride, on the other hand, can only be 58.44. It's just bad hashing.

graphical number line web site

[Jeff Archambeault]

This vaguely reminds me of a website years ago that presented an interactive interface of a huge number line. The page was divided into a couple sections for the zoom level, the closest zoom level showed a bar for the number of entries it had for each individual number (tall=more entries). Clicking on the number would give a list of representations, selecting a representation gave a selection from the web resource the info came from.

I checked my bookmarks and googled a bit, but does anyone else remember the site, and if so, is it still around?

computer chip IDs are numbers too ...

[Big Jojo]

If you've ever had to find data sheets for chips given schematics (or sometimes just a board) you'll see another version of this. Google returns lots of results ... with over 95% of them being chip brokers or third parties that somehow never seem to have those documents in their for-pay database of data sheets.

It gets very hard to find, say, a page with the current vendor of those chips (after three or four buyouts).

Maybe this company can make *those* numbers work better....

The secret lives of numbers

[Danny Rathjens]

This nifty applet I bookmarked from a decade ago shows the frequency of integers that appear online and some of their associations. It's neat to see the increase around the 1900s since they obviously appear in dates a lot more and the grids of popularity formed by the increased usage of "round" numbers.
http://www.turbulence.org/Works/nums/applet.html

The Number of the MOVIE

[1024]

So, when will I be able to search for a feature film and watch it directly from the search result entry that returns its NUMBER -- a file is nothing more that a very big number, right? Does this mean that numbers beyond some value are not searchable?

Special character search

[religious freak]

You know what I'd love to be able to search for - special chars. If I look up something like %d, any search engine is woefully inadequate. It's a problem when doing research on certain programming or IT related content. Anyone have any good ideas on how to do this kind of search? I've tried everything I can think of, and I think it's impossible to do on today's search engine.

Hmmmm. If I knew the answer......

[Anonymous Coward]

If you knew a mole of sodium chloride was 58.44 grams, then why would you search on the number 58.44? just a thought. I'd probably search on "mole of sodium chloride" myself, if I didnt know the answer already (at least now I do).

I got one...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+break+your+addiction+to+slashdot

http://www.bing.com/search?q=how+to+break+your+addiction+to+slashdot

Don't we have this already?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wikipedia.org/

Or by context do they really mean patentable? I recall the decryption of CSS (the copy protection on DVD's), was broken down to a factor which when applied to a formula, would produce the code required to break it... or some thing like that. The point was since a number cannot be patented, you could in theory store the number instead of the code itself and not worry.

Freaky idea for a company.

well that didn't last long

[Anonymous Coward]

Now its down to number 9.

Re:5318008

[GargamelSpaceman]

My favorite number is 5318008, and lo and behold, google returns it as the top result.

number dictionary

[grrrl]

so really they are suggesting that google implement a dictionary for numbers? that would be kind cool actually.