Currently watching The One for the nth time in my entire life but as I watched it today, I noticed a small detail that intrigued me. As the Multiverse Authority was about to transport Jet Li to the Hades universe, it was said that he had 123 counts of murder and illegal travel.

Including himself (Bad Jet Li), and the last living parallel self he's about to kill (Good Jet Li), there should be a total of 125 universes that exist in the movie.

Is there anything magical/logical/scientific about the number 125?

  • 3
    Well, it's a nice round number, 5³.
    – Mr Lister
    Commented Mar 3, 2013 at 12:11
  • wouldn't 123 counts of murder and illegal travel mean he has killed > 123 people?
    – KutuluMike
    Commented Mar 3, 2013 at 23:35
  • In the course of going after the other Next to Last Jet Li, he whacked a number of people. Might that not also be so in the other places he's traveled to? I haven't seen it in a bit; did they separate out the murder from the travel, or was it one lump sum? Commented Mar 4, 2013 at 0:42
  • Okay, they aren't counting all the cops he did in during the last one (Lawless) so hey. It doesn't look like it matters all that much; the film makers aren't really hung up on details. Commented Mar 4, 2013 at 2:10

3 Answers 3


When agent Funsch (Jason Statham) is explaining the whole multiverse business to Law (good Jet Li), he mentions something about how universes are created:

Every time a massive star dies and becomes a black hole, a new universe is created

He also mentions:

In this universe you are you, in another you don't exist [...]

Which implies that there are more universes than just the one with Jet Lis in them.

So I'm guessing the amount of kills is just about completely arbitrary, it's the amount of black holes that have been created in Statham's universe that happen to contain Jet Lis.

  • Seem to have missed those details.
    – Joseph
    Commented Mar 4, 2013 at 11:24
  • 1
    @JosephtheDreamer they don't really make a big deal out of it, it's just something mentioned quickly so they can move on to Jet Li hitting police officers with motorcycles :)
    – jono
    Commented Mar 4, 2013 at 12:22

I think the number 125 was chosen at random and demonstrates critical research failure. 137 (the reciprocal of the fine-structure constant) would have been a better choice and would have shown an understanding of quantum theory.


Actually, there is a very nice proof to show that every single natural number (and by extension every rational number) is interesting and special.

For the sake of contradiction, assume one natural number is not interesting or special. Then due to the canonic order of the natural numbers, there must be a smallest uninteresting and un-special number. Clearly being the smallest number is something special and quite interesting. Hence, we have established a contradiction and our initial assumption must be flawed. Therefore, every single number is interesting and special.

As a corollary, the number 125 (as well as 123) is quite thrilling and exciting. You can adapt the proof for the classification of your choice.

  • So basically, for something uninteresting, we make use some fact that makes it unique, thus making it interesting and thereby nullifying the fact of it being uninteresting? Or something like that?
    – Joseph
    Commented Mar 3, 2013 at 15:16
  • @JosephtheDreamer: Yes, that is the argument. Something that is unique is (by implicit definition) interesting. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what film you are talking about)
    – bitmask
    Commented Mar 3, 2013 at 15:19
  • I'll leave this post hanging for more answers. However, your answer's logic is very interesting indeed.
    – Joseph
    Commented Mar 3, 2013 at 15:21
  • Such black an white thinking. Commented Mar 3, 2013 at 18:23
  • 2
    This is amusing but not an appropriate answer to the question. It's just a play on words--assuming, incorrectly, that being the smallest uninteresting number is interesting and that this classification can be applied recursively an infinite number of times.
    – Rex Kerr
    Commented Mar 3, 2013 at 23:35

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.