Add new comment

Sir,
Going by your logic , there would not be any 'smallest number' .
E.g. -91 = (-3) ^3 + (-4) ^3 = (-6) ^3 + (5) ^3 < 91
and so the negative of any larger such positive numbers will give further smaller numbers (e.g. -1729) and so on ............
So I think this condition you are saying has to be implicitly implied :)

About text formats

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Maths in a minute

    Want facts and want them fast? Our Maths in a minute series explores key mathematical concepts in just a few words.

  • Chocolate and mayonnaise
    chocolate

    What do chocolate and mayonnaise have in common? It's maths! Find out how in this podcast featuring engineer Valerie Pinfield.

  • From clicks to chords
    icon

    Is it possible to write unique music with the limited quantity of notes and chords available? We ask musician Oli Freke!

  • The lungs of the Earth

    How can maths help to understand the Southern Ocean, a vital component of the Earth's climate system?

  • SBIDER Presents: Shining a light on COVID modelling
    icon

    Was the mathematical modelling projecting the course of the pandemic too pessimistic, or were the projections justified? Matt Keeling tells our colleagues from SBIDER about the COVID models that fed into public policy.

  • Mathematical snapshots: Daniel Kreuter

    PhD student Daniel Kreuter tells us about his work on the BloodCounts! project, which uses maths to make optimal use of the billions of blood tests performed every year around the globe.