google.com/search?q=11!

Yeah, but a calculator can do that. What you need Google for is to go the other way: having been presented with some number such as 73939133, tell me what's interesting about it.

True, sorry. I guess I was evaluating not google's utility, but how far to sapience it had gone (it *does* know the answer...)

It's about time they included a reverse lookup, something like your website, but working, or like http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/ -- I'm sure I remember one but can't find it now, do you happen to know of one?

Did you fill out their feedback form...?

What, and cause the next ten people who follow the above link to post comments here saying "er, no it doesn't"? :-)

After the first one you could edit the post to say they'd corrected it.

Yes. I imagine they’ll have ten bits of feedback about that by now (apart from mine). I wonder which timezone they’re in?

It is an important, and potentially deeply infuriating, stage in any computational number theory problem to type in the answer you've obtained to Google and discover that it was originally obtained by Noam Elkies twenty years earlier.

Ah yes. Much like looking up your shiny new algorithm in the index of Knuth.

Are there really {m}any new algorithms to be found?

Incidentally, your quartic surfaces page seems rather unclearly written in places. It took me a while to twig that the quartic surface equation given in the page title was not in fact a typo but was talking about rational rather than integer solutions. Then you shift from that representation straight to adding a t⁴ term and talking about integers, and suddenly shift back again in the hyperplanes section.

With a bit of thought it's not impossible to work out what you're talking about, but I think I'd prefer that you only require thought of your readers in the bits that are actually supposed to require thought :-)

Actually, it says it's the factorial of 12!, which I think is a rather larger number again. :-p

Presumably they mean "...is the factorial of twelve, shock"

I assume they did, but some clarity and care with mathematical symbols would be sensible in the context!

Oh, I was joking, I actually thought your were right the first time, that they used factorial twice, not realising it would logically stack.

Maths exam for the 733t-speak generation:

Evaluate 12!!!11one!1!

Oodles...?