Hideously large numbers

[Elliott]

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]

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]

Come on :P. Adding + 1 or * 9999999 to a previously defined insanity isn't tactful.

[Pigbuster]

I can beat that.

∞

Done.

[Elliott]

... and for the purposes of this thread, infinity is outlawed.

[Pigbuster]

Okay.

Googolplex ^ googolplex

[Elliott]

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]

This thread is redundant +1. :rolleyes:

[MrBunsy]

Can I just use tan(pi/2) ? Approaching from the left.

[_Kilburn]

1/ε

You are all ***ed. :p

[Paul.Power]

... and for the purposes of this thread, infinity is outlawed.

Fine.

Aleph-one

[Alien King]

-1! ?

Oh wait, no infinity.

[AndrewTaylor]

-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]

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]

... and for the purposes of this thread, infinity is outlawed.
∞ -1, then.

[AndrewTaylor]

∞ -1, then.

That's still infinity.

[_Kilburn]

1/ε

IIRC, ε isn't zero, so 1/ε isn't infinity.

[AndrewTaylor]

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]

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]

That's still infinity.
Nobody understands my jokes. :(

Interesting: Who Can Name the Bigger Number? (http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html)

[Elliott]

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]

"In mathematics (particularly calculus), an arbitrarily (or nearly so) small positive quantity is commonly denoted ε"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon

:rolleyes:

[AndrewTaylor]

"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]

10/0.

:mad:

[Alien King]

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]

You know, ∞ is actually a relatively small number.

∞ raised by the power of ∞ is much bigger.

[Alien King]

It's still infinite though. Multiplying infinity by itself an infinite number of times will stil result in an equally infinite infinity.

[Melon]

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]

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]

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.