All Vowels in an Integer

[Eric Pascarello]

What is the first integer where all of the vowels are included in it?

Eric

[fred rosenberger]

negative four googoleplex?

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

one hundred and five?

[Ryan McGuire]

Originally posted by Ernest Friedman-Hill:
one hundred and five?

Where's the 'y'?
[ May 08, 2006: Message edited by: Ryan McGuire ]

[Paul Clapham]

You want a 'y'? Then one hundred and thirty.

[Ryan McGuire]

Originally posted by Paul Clapham:
You want a 'y'? Then one hundred and thirty.

One hundred and twenty five.

[Eric Pascarello]

I would not use and...

Eric

[Ryan McGuire]

Originally posted by Eric Pascarello:
I would not use and...

So what answer were you looking for? A hundred thirty-one? One thousand five?
[ May 08, 2006: Message edited by: Ryan McGuire ]

[fred rosenberger]

i'm still not sure what you mean by "first" integer. there is no first, because for any integer you can name, i can name an infinite more that are to the left of it on the numberline.

if you mean first POSITIVE integer, that's different.

according to The Straight Dope, w can also sometimes be a vowel.
Dictionary.com also claims that l, m, n, and r are potenially vowels...
[ May 08, 2006: Message edited by: fred rosenberger ]

[Paul Clapham]

Originally posted by Eric Pascarello:
I would not use and...

Eric

I always use and.

[fred rosenberger]

I remember being taught that "and" was used for the decimal part of a float.

"one hundred and forty-four" is wrong.

"one hundred forty-four" is correct.

"seven and three tenths" is correct.

[Ryan McGuire]

Originally posted by fred rosenberger:
I remember being taught that "and" was used for the decimal part of a float.

"one hundred and forty-four" is wrong.

"one hundred forty-four" is correct.

"seven and three tenths" is correct.

Ok then, let's try "zero and eight fourths" (0 8/4). That is merely a mixed number that evaluates to an integer value.

[Ernest Friedman-Hill]

final int aeiouy = 0;

Clearly 0 is the answer

[Paul Clapham]

Originally posted by fred rosenberger:
I remember being taught that "and" was used for the decimal part of a float.

"one hundred and forty-four" is wrong.

"one hundred forty-four" is correct.

"seven and three tenths" is correct.

I wasn't ever taught any of those things that I can remember, or anything like them. I just learned how to say numbers from everybody else just like people regularly learn language. So to me, "one hundred forty-four" sounds like a specialized American usage.

[Jim Yingst]

This may be of some interest: American and British English Differences: Numbers.

I wonder... what if we consider all 26 letters used in English. What's the largest number of different letters that can be incorporated in the representation of a single positive integer? And what is the smallest integer that achieves this?

For purposes of this problem, please consider only standard counting emthods (albeit perhaps extended for somewhat larger numbers than we usually see). No fractions, no formulas, no, Java source code. You can include or omit "and" anywhere it serves your purposes as long as it's "standard" somewhere that speaks a form of English - I don't think it will matter much. But there's no "zero thousand" or "... and zero". No zero anywhere you don't need it. And no "zillion" either. If you can find a more plausible-sounding way to insert a z somewhere, have at it.

[Steve Fahlbusch]

if i use and then the answer if nine

[Ryan McGuire]

If "first" is defined as "closest to zero", I'd go with "negative four".

[George Harris]

Jim, I was able to get in 23 letters with:

1,001,000,000,001,000,001,001,024,678

I couldn't figure out how to use J, K or Z

[Stefan Wagner]

french: quarantetrois (43).
german: Einemilliontausend. (1001000)

[Jim Yingst]

George: I got the same 23 letters using

1,001,000,000,001,000,001,001,002,568

Which is pretty close to your answer, all things considered. Good job.

[George Harris]

Actually Jim if you can write your positive integer with some precision(2), we have the answer for the 'Z'

1,001,000,000,001,000,001,001,002,568.00

[Jim Yingst]

Hmmm. To my mind it's no longer an integer if you do that. Still, that may be as close as we can come.

[Rob Acraman]

You could have a dozen billion:

1,001,000,000,001,012,001,001,002,568

[George Harris]

251,000,000,000,000,001,001,002,568.00 could be the lower answer...

A quarter octillion, one septillion, etc.

[Jim Yingst]

Well, you guys are thinking outside the box at least, I'll give you that...