Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Largest number?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:07

whats the largest number you can express without involving infinities?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:13

1

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:17

It doesn't exist.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:17

11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 2

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:18

N, for a large enough N.

Name: Autistic Duck 2011-06-06 8:18

v(y)=TREE(TREE(...(...(10)))), with y TREE() functions's ;see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal's_theorem
k(x,y)=v(v(v(...(x)))) , with y v() functions
b(x,y)=b(b(b(...(x)))) with y b functions, each is abstraction step of v() to k(), counting the abstraction level
c(x,y)=c(c(c(c(...(x))))) with y c functions, each is abstraction step of k() to b(), counting the abstraction level
z(x,y)=z(z(z(z(...(x))))) with y z functions each is abstraction step of c() to b(), counting the abstraction level
Number is z(z(10,10),z(10,10))

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:18

define "number"

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:21

1 is infinitely more than 0, so you can only express 0.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:26

>>8
0 is infinitely small, so you can only express something smaller.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:26

>>6
a power tower with z(z(10,10),z(10,10))  members of each member is also z(z(10,10),z(10,10))

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:35

>>10
A power tower with z(z(10,10),z(10,10)) copies of >>10 power tower inside it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:38

>>11
Imagine a series of posts similar to >>11 each power tower using previous post power tower as basic building block.
Now the imagine the z(z(10,10),z(10,10)) post.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:41

>>12
Using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth_up-arrow_notation
With >>12 post's number arrows and each member is >>12 number

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:42

>>13
recursively apply arrow notation to >>13 z(z(10,10),z(10,10)) times

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:44

>>14
Still much smaller then 1/(1-0.999...)

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:50

The funny thing is that there's no largest infinity either, so even if you involve infinities, you can't express it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:53

lotta autism in here

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 8:59

>>14
the number of f(10,10) with f is the >>14 number as hyperoperator level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_operator

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 9:52

Infinity isn't supposed to be a number but an abstraction for the concept that number will continue indefinitely and are not limited.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 10:14

>>19
In some axiomatic systems it can be defined in a way similar to a ``number'', for example, the infinity of natural numbers is lower than the infinity of real numbers.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 11:33

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 11:58

Let N be the largest number expressable without involving infinites. Then N+1 is also expressable without involving infinites.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:01

Let N be the largest faggot trying to do math without involving infinities.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:04

FAG

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:07

bump

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:13

>>22
You're confusing the upper bounds of a function with induction.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:16

>>26
You're confusing sage with YHBT.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:18

>>27
Well, this idiot seems to be confused. I'm willing to bet he never made it beyound freshman level calculus at his hick university!

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:33

>>26

Okay then. Express whatever number you can without using the ``infinite'' concept, then I'll add 1 to your number. I managed to express a bigger number than yours without involving any infinite.

I know IHBT, but I don't care.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:45

>>29
Are you this fucking dumb. Okay, let's say I have the following loop....

int k = 0;
for (j = 1; j <= 20; j++) {
  k = k + i;
}

The loop, in math terms, can be express as
f(n) = 20 * c

Or f of x is equal to some constant.

Now what happens when I change 20 to n?

int k = 0;
for (j = 1; j <= n; j++) {
  k = k + i;
}


Where in is some unknown number that goes from 1 to whatever. Then I can express this as..

f(n) = n * c

So this means the function is now f of x equals to x. What is the upper bounds in this case you fucking faggot?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:47

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

There is no largest natural number though.

The second you arbitrarily make up a largest natural, such as 10^10^10^10^10, you immediately leave there to be another possible largest natural, such as 10^10^10^10^10^10, and it can go on.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:48

>>30
And just for the record you fucking autistic nigger, this is similar question that was given to me on the CS comprehensive exams.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:50

>>29
Now fuck off. You are dumb, boring, and quite frankly, I'd be suprised if you actually worked as a computer programmer for a major firm.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:52

>>28,30-33
YHBT FAGGOT. YHL. talk to the HAND.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:54

>>34
Go serve your shift at walmart you hourly worker bitch.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 12:55

>>34
The only thing you seem to be talented at is making off base comments about shit that you clearly don't understand. Now I see why don't work as a computer programmer for a company like Microsoft or Apple.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 13:01

>>35-36 u just butthurt go wipe ur milk off ur face u fart commander

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 13:08

>>37
Not now. Unlike you, some of us actually write computer code for a living. And guess what you fucking autistic nigger? The code that I help write is used by over 30 million people around the world! Now fuck off.

Name: VIPPER 2011-06-06 13:15

>>38
lol

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-06 13:59

(1 .. *).pop;

>>38
See everyone, I knew that Ulrich story was a hoax.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List