Alexis, Suyono
I've thought of a number that's bigger than any of the one's we've
discussed so far. There's not enough space on Yahoo's servers to
store it even if it is written using compounded exponentiation so
I'll just describe it for you.
It's f*cking HUGE!!!!!!!
Seriously though, if we continue along the present path we will have
to consider Turing machines and then Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
and I won't have time to actually play/create LT :-(
Mark
I've thought of a number that's bigger than any of the one's we've
discussed so far. There's not enough space on Yahoo's servers to
store it even if it is written using compounded exponentiation so
I'll just describe it for you.
It's f*cking HUGE!!!!!!!
Seriously though, if we continue along the present path we will have
to consider Turing machines and then Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem
and I won't have time to actually play/create LT :-(
Mark
--- In [email protected], Suyono <suyonohy@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexis,
>
> Thank you for the correction. Yes, you are right.
>
> That article ("The Challenge of Large Number") was in
> Scientific American. I didn't notice that when it says
> Ackermann numbers (at the end of article); it means
> DIFFERENT Ackermann numbers. It's 3^^4,
> not 3^^^3.
>
> About Ackermann numbers, I use this definition:
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AckermannNumber.html
> (Same series like yours.)
>
> The value of 3^^4 :
> 3^^4 = 3^3^3^3 = 3^7,625,597,484,987 =
> approx. 1.258 * 10^3,638,334,640,024 (over three
> trillion digits long). See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration
>
> Another interesting article is "Large Numbers" (6
> pages) at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/math/largenum.html
> The author starts with, "Large numbers have interested
> me almost all my life."
>
> I better let the mathematicians calculate the value of
> 3^^^3. Probably, I can live with formula-free number
> names. See:
> http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/large.html
>
> Bye,
> Suyono
>
>
> prokofiev2006 wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for the articles Suyono, very interresting.
> > But I'm afraid 3^^^3 is much bigger than 10^3,638,334,640,024.
> > The number of digits can be calculated this way, if I'm not
mistaken:
> > Log10(3^^^3) = log10(3) * log3(3^^^3)
> > = 0,477 * (3^(3^(3^�&3))), where 3 is repeated 7,625,597,484,987-1
> > times.
> > That's HUGE !
> > And the googolplex can go cry in his mother 's skirt.
> > An enormous step for a man's mind, and yet a tiny step for
infinity
> >
> > Alexis
> >
>