“Ten has a one-syllable name. Seventy-seven has a five-syllable

name. The seventh power of seven hundred seventy-seven has a name

that, if we were to work it out, might run to 100 syllables or so;

but this number can also be specified more briefly in other terms. I

have just specified it in 15 syllables. We can be sure, however, that

there are no end of numbers that resist all specification, by name or

description, under 19 syllables. There is only a finite stock of

syllables altogether, and hence only a finite number of names or

phrases of less than 19 syllables, whereas there are an infinite

number of positive integers. Very well, then ; of those numbers not

specifiable in less than 19 syllables, there must be a least. And

here is our antinomy : the least number not specifiable in less than

nineteen syllables is specifiable in 18 syllables. I have just so

specified it.

The antinomy belongs to the same family as the antinomies that have

gone before. For the key word of this antinomy, “specifiable”, is

interdefinable with “true of”. It is one more of the truth locutions

that would take on subscripts under the Russell-Tarski plan. The

least number not specifiable-0 in less than nineteen syllables is

indeed specifiable-1 in 18 syllables, but it is not specifiable-0 in

less than 19 syllables ; for all I know it is not specifiable-0 in

less than 23.”

By the way, it seems that Russell thought Berry’s numberÂ was 111,777.

111777 = three hundred thirty four squared plus two hundred twenty one (14 syllables)

also, forty eight cubed plus one thousand one hundred eighty five (also 14)

Even better:

two thousand one hundred nine times fifty three (11)

nine thousand sixty three times thirty seven (11)