Hideously large numbers [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Hideously large numbers

Elliott
18 May 2007, 22:53
Where hideous is "makes googolplex look like a pansy."
x(0, n) = S(A(n^((n^n)+n), n^n))
x(m, 0) = x(m-1, 1)
x(m,n) = x(n-1, n*m)
y(n) = x(n, n^n)
z(0,n) = y(n)
z(m,n) = y(n)^z(m-1, n*n)
huge = z(z(A(g_99,g_99),g_99), z(g_99, g_99))

evilworm2
18 May 2007, 23:20
x(0, n) = S(A(n^((n^n)+n), n^n))
x(m, 0) = x(m-1, 1)
x(m,n) = x(n-1, n*m)
y(n) = x(n, n^n)
z(0,n) = y(n)
z(m,n) = y(n)^z(m-1, n*n)
huge = z(z(A(g_99,g_99),g_99), z(g_99, g_99)) + 1
is even larger. :-/

Elliott
18 May 2007, 23:27
Come on :P. Adding + 1 or * 9999999 to a previously defined insanity isn't tactful.

Pigbuster
18 May 2007, 23:36
I can beat that.
∞
Done.

Elliott
19 May 2007, 00:00
... and for the purposes of this thread, infinity is outlawed.

Pigbuster
19 May 2007, 00:08
Okay.
Googolplex ^ googolplex

Elliott
19 May 2007, 00:09
That's tiny compared to my number. Look up the S (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver#Max_shifts_function) and A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ackermann_function) functions.

bonz
19 May 2007, 01:04
This thread is redundant +1. :rolleyes:

MrBunsy
19 May 2007, 08:48
Can I just use tan(pi/2) ? Approaching from the left.

_Kilburn
19 May 2007, 09:20
1/ε
You are all ***ed. :p

Paul.Power
19 May 2007, 11:01
... and for the purposes of this thread, infinity is outlawed.
Fine.
Aleph-one

Alien King
19 May 2007, 11:02
-1! ?
Oh wait, no infinity.

AndrewTaylor
19 May 2007, 11:45
-1! ?
Oh wait, no infinity.
The factorial of a negative number isn't defined. It's not even a number, let alone a large one.
Come on :P. Adding + 1 or * 9999999 to a previously defined insanity isn't tactful.
That's a bit harsh, considering you've basically just taken "the xkcd number" (http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/01/11/the-clarkkkkson-vs-the-xkcd-number/), made the numbers larger, and stuck in a couple more calls.
z(z(A(g_99,g_99),g_99), z(g_99, g_99))
In any case, this is a faintly ridiculous game, since whatever number you mention, there are infinite larger numbers to choose from, and it's going to be, in general, impossible to evaluate or compare them anyway.

Alien King
19 May 2007, 11:52
The factorial of a negative number isn't defined. It's not even a number, let alone a large one.
For the purposes of this thread, I was going on the theory that 0 will go into anything an infinite number of times.
Although, you are right. It isn't defined.

evilworm2
19 May 2007, 12:15
... and for the purposes of this thread, infinity is outlawed.
∞ -1, then.

AndrewTaylor
19 May 2007, 12:28
∞ -1, then.
That's still infinity.

_Kilburn
19 May 2007, 13:40
1/ε
IIRC, ε isn't zero, so 1/ε isn't infinity.

AndrewTaylor
19 May 2007, 13:48
IIRC, ε isn't zero, so 1/ε isn't infinity.
Presuming ε is referring to an infinitesimal number, 1/ε is infinity. Zero is an infinitesimal number.
But this is delving dangerously into hyperreal analysis, which I'll wager at best one person on this forum will understand. So can we not discuss it?

Plasma
19 May 2007, 13:51
IIRC, ε isn't zero, so 1/ε isn't infinity.
I presume by ε, you mean an 'empty string'. In which case 1/ε certainly isn't defined!

evilworm2
19 May 2007, 14:15
That's still infinity.
Nobody understands my jokes. :(
Interesting: Who Can Name the Bigger Number? (http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html)

Elliott
19 May 2007, 14:22
The factorial of a negative number isn't defined. It's not even a number, let alone a large one.
That's a bit harsh, considering you've basically just taken "the xkcd number" (http://blag.xkcd.com/2007/01/11/the-clarkkkkson-vs-the-xkcd-number/), made the numbers larger, and stuck in a couple more calls.
In any case, this is a faintly ridiculous game, since whatever number you mention, there are infinite larger numbers to choose from, and it's going to be, in general, impossible to evaluate or compare them anyway.
Look at the more recent post titled Large Numbers. The comments are basically throwing around bigger numbers, so it's natural that they'd be based on each other.
I guess I did break the 32char limit anyway.

_Kilburn
19 May 2007, 14:25
"In mathematics (particularly calculus), an arbitrarily (or nearly so) small positive quantity is commonly denoted ε"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon
:rolleyes:

AndrewTaylor
19 May 2007, 14:37
"In mathematics (particularly calculus), an arbitrarily (or nearly so) small positive quantity is commonly denoted ε"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon
:rolleyes:
Oh, so it's a number that doesn't exist. How useful.

Pigbuster
19 May 2007, 15:54
10/0.
:mad:

Alien King
19 May 2007, 15:56
10/0.
:mad:
I've already done -1! which equals 1/0.
Besides, n/0 is undefined and infinity is discounted.
*idea*
x(0, n) = S(A(n^((n^n)+n), n^n))
x(m, 0) = x(m-1, 1)
x(m,n) = x(n-1, n*m)
y(n) = x(n, n^n)
z(0,n) = y(n)
z(m,n) = y(n)^z(m-1, n*n)
huge = (z(z(A(g_99,g_99),g_99), z(g_99, g_99)))!

Xinos
19 May 2007, 16:37
You know, ∞ is actually a relatively small number.
∞ raised by the power of ∞ is much bigger.

Alien King
19 May 2007, 16:39
It's still infinite though. Multiplying infinity by itself an infinite number of times will stil result in an equally infinite infinity.

Melon
19 May 2007, 16:43
I'm sorry, but I seem to have missed the point behind this thread. But I seem to get that feeling a lot around Online Orgy lately.

Alien King
19 May 2007, 16:45
This pointless and ridiculous thread had the aim of creating really large numbers without the use of infinity.
Of course, it was doomed to failure as all that is required is people to +1 to the previous number.

AndrewTaylor
19 May 2007, 16:48
I think that's quite enough.
If any more of you want to demonstrate your staggering ignorance of mathematics, you can do it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:0.999.../Arguments) like everyone else.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.