TITLE: What is the smallest unknown natural number?
QUESTION [113 upvotes]: There are several unknown numbers in mathematics, such as optimal constants in some inequalities.
Often it is enough to some estimates for these numbers from above and below, but finding the exact values is also interesting.
There are situations where such unknown numbers are necessarily natural numbers, for example in Ramsey theory.
For example, we know that there is a smallest integer $n$ such that any graph with $n$ vertices contains a complete or an independent subgraph of 10 vertices, but we don't know the exact value of $n$.
What kinds of unknown small (less than 100, say) integers are there?
What are the smallest unknown constants which are known to be integers?
Or, more rigorously, what is the smallest upper bound for an unknown but definable number that is known to be an integer?
I know that asking for the smallest unknown integer is ill-defined since we do not know the exact values.
The more rigorous version of the question is well-posed, but I do not want to keep anyone from offering interesting examples even if they are clearly not going to win the race for the lowest upper bound.
An answer should contain a definition of an integer quantity (or a family of them) and known lower and upper bounds (both of which should be integers, not infinite).
Conjectures about the actual value are also welcome.
I have given one example below to give an idea of what I'm looking for.

REPLY [13 votes]: How big is $2^{\aleph_\omega}$? ($\aleph_\omega$ is the $\omega$th uncountable cardinality.)
Of course, this question is well out of reach of ZFC, and certainly not about finite objects. However, Saharon Shelah showed that we can prove certain restrictions on this (and other) exponential quantities. In particular, he showed $$\text{If $2^{\aleph_k}<\aleph_\omega$ for every $k\in\omega$, then $2^{\aleph_\omega}<\aleph_{\omega_4}$.}$$
So far as I know the "4" is not known to be optimal, nor is there a good reason to believe it is apart from our inability to do better; see section 2 of Chapter IX of Shelah's book Cardinal Arithmetic, colorfully titled "Why the hell is it four?"
So here's an interesting unknown finite number:

What is the least $n$ such that ZFC proves: if $2^{\aleph_k}<\aleph_\omega$ for all $k\in\omega$, then $2^{\aleph_\omega}<\aleph_{\omega_n}$?

This may seem like a curiosity, but I think that computing this number - in particular, proving optimality, and reducing from 4 to something smaller if that's possible - would require fundamental advances in set theory.