What is the largest real number one can write within 200 characters?

  • Thread starter micromass
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Contest
In summary: Edit: I see someone has edited the post - note I wasn't sure if the Knuth's notation counts as standard, so I have not used all possible up arrows, leaving place for the "Knuth's notation" name. If if counts as standard, then obviously there should be 198 up arrows.Well keeping in line with the above post, just do this:x!, x is Graham's number.That would be taking Graham's number factorial 176 times.Well keeping in line with the above post, just do this:x!, x is Graham's number.That would be taking Graham's number factorial 176 times.
  • #141
0.3(3)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
DevilsAvocado said:
(And that goes for seconds and abacus as well, unless you plan to live longer than the universe! :wink:)

I don't know about you, but I plan to live forever.
 
  • Like
Likes ComplexVar89 and ProfuselyQuarky
  • #143
Drakkith said:
I don't know about you, but I plan to live forever.
Hoping is different from planning. And I'm pretty sure you only hope to live forever!
 
  • Like
Likes ProfuselyQuarky and Drakkith
  • #144
Shyan said:
Hoping is different from planning. And I'm pretty sure you only hope to live forever!
And planning is different from knowing :biggrin:

Drakkith knows that he's not going to live forever (I hope)
 
  • #145
ProfuselyQuarky said:
Drakkith knows that he's not going to live forever (I hope)

Way to dash my hopes and dreams... :cry:
 
  • #146
Drakkith said:
Way to dash my hopes and dreams... :cry:
There, there. My dream was to prove that narwhals are really unicorns undercover, but I soon got over it
 
  • Like
Likes Samy_A and Drakkith
  • #147
ProfuselyQuarky said:
There, there. My dream was to prove that narwhals are really unicorns undercover, but I soon got over it
Who says they're not?:wink::wink:
 
  • Like
Likes ProfuselyQuarky
  • #148
Isaac0427 said:
Who says they're not?:wink::wink:
Aha! A believer! Try telling that to a biology teacher :woot:

**I, for one, have done just that and do NOT recommend it**
 
  • #149
Drakkith said:
but I plan to live forever

Or die trying?
 
  • Like
Likes atyy, ComplexVar89, Dembadon and 1 other person
  • #150
Drakkith said:
I don't know about you, but I plan to live forever.

No worries, mate. I'm almost a little bit jealous ... imagine 4-8 billion* years from now, when the Milky Way and Andromeda merge into one ... man, talk about fireworks.

800px-Andromeda_Collides_Milky_Way.jpg


On the other hand, the Dark Era in [itex]10^{100}[/itex] years, doesn't look that tasty ... photons, neutrinos, electrons, and positrons flying from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other, and on top of that; a terribly unstable abacus and wooden spoon + the knowledge that you have only come halfway in this hair-raising PF Contest ... :rolleyes:

*Of course, that little hiccup of the Sun turning into a red giant, can easily be fixed with a wooden spoon and some perkiness.
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith and ProfuselyQuarky
  • #151
Drakkith said:
I don't know about you, but I plan to live forever.

"Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever."
-- William T. Riker, Star Trek: Generations
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #152
I would post the number Y, such that
Code:
 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ... + 1/Y = G,
where G is the Graham's number
 
  • #153
DaTario said:
I would post the number Y, such that
Code:
 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ... + 1/Y = G,
where G is the Graham's number

So something like ##e^G##?
 
  • #154
LLTTBTBA number

(Least Less Than Too Big To Be Accepted)

VMVSI number > 0

(Very Many Very Small Increments)
 
  • #155
It's time to put the nail in the coffin:

Alternative 1:
Code:
[itex]
y=\Sigma(G^{\text{Googolyottaplex}^{\text{TREE}(3)^{\text{SCG}(13)^{\text{Rayo}(\text{Googol})^{\text{FOOT}^{10}(\text{Googol})}}}}})\\x=y![y]\\Ref:googology.wikia.com/wiki/List\_of\_googologisms
[/itex]
(195 characters including LaTeX)

There's a reference to everything in the included link, but to make it easier, here's direct links:
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Googol
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Googolyottaplex
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/BB(n)
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Graham's_number
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/TREE(3)
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/SCG(13)
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Rayo's_number
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/BIG_FOOT
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Nested_Factorial_Notation


Alternative 2:
Code:
Call Max Tegmark and ask him to check with the Mathematical Universe, if there's a bigger number than Alternative 1.

390px-Omega-exp-omega-labeled.svg.png

(Sorry Drakkith, it seems like this universe isn't enough... there's a risk of a Big Rip... the only hope is that Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde, etc are right that Multiverse do exist... and that you could migrate to new fresh one... :nb))
 
  • Like
Likes atyy, ProfuselyQuarky and micromass
  • #156
micromass said:
So something like ##e^G##?
Kind of Euler-Mascheroni apart of.:smile:
 
  • #157
DevilsAvocado said:
Code:
[itex]
y=\Sigma(G^{\text{Googolyottaplex}^{\text{TREE}(3)^{\text{SCG}(13)^{\text{Rayo}(\text{Googol})^{\text{FOOT}^{10}(\text{Googol})}}}}})\\x=y![y]
\\(13)_{x}\\Ref:
bit.ly/1Y6OXRR[/itex]

or if bit.ly not allowed, then x + 13
 
Last edited:
  • #158
nolxiii said:
or if bit.ly not allowed, then x + 13

I think bit.ly is allowed, but not stealing MY ideas! :mad:

(:biggrin:)
 
  • #159
Seriously nolxiii, I called Max Tegmark the other day (April 1st) and asked him to comment on x, and after consulting the Mathematical Universe Supreme Court, he returned with the following remarks:

- Rayo's number and BIG FOOT are nice big numbers, however they can be risky due to the philosophical/self-referential (bigger than the smaller yada yada) nature. It's better to feed that eager beaver's mouth, with what you get ... and also utilize the layers of Graham in a more 'brutal' way.

So here's my final Alternative 3:
Code:
[itex]
z=\Sigma(G^{\text{Googolyottaplex}^{\text{TREE}(3)^{\text{SCG}(13)^{\text{SCG}(13)^{\text{SCG}(13)}}}}})\\y=\Sigma(g_{z})\\x=\Sigma(y![y])\\\text{Ref: googology.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_googologisms}
[/itex]
(197 characters including LaTeX)

Looks like a killer to me ...

:wink:
 
  • #160
On the shoulders of giants..

DevilsAvocado said:
Code:
[itex]
z=\Sigma({\text{SGC}(13)^{\text{TREE}(3)^{\text{SGC}(13)^{\text{SCG}(13)^{\text{SCG}(13)^{\text{SCG}(13)}}}}}})\\y=\Sigma(g_{z})\\x=\Sigma(y![y])\\\text{Ref: googology.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_googologisms}
[/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #161
better off just stringing together a lot of busy beavers though? i lost track
 
  • #162
nolxiii said:
On the shoulders of giants..
Maybe ... and almost insanely* large ... now we're just awaiting for OP to tell us (at least :smile:) how many positions/powers the top contesters have ... ?? :nb)

*I get dizzy just trying to 'visualize' ...
 
  • #163
DevilsAvocado said:
Maybe ... and almost insanely* large ... now we're just awaiting for OP to tell us (at least :smile:) how many positions/powers the top contesters have ... ?? :nb)

*I get dizzy just trying to 'visualize' ...

The OP got scared of the numbers :sorry:
 
  • #164
∞!
 
  • #165
Kyx said:
∞!
Infinity is not a number :biggrin:
 
  • #166
Are you going to declare a winner, @micromass?
 
  • #167
I think the biggest number posted is by DevilsAvocado. Any use of the bigfoot functions is superior to any other number posted. So:

Code:
[itex]
y=\Sigma(G^{\text{Googolyottaplex}^{\text{TREE}(3)^{\text{SCG}(13)^{\text{Rayo}(\text{Googol})^{\text{FOOT}^{10}(\text{Googol})}}}}})\\x=y![y]\\Ref:googology.wikia.com/wiki/List\_of\_googologisms
[/itex]
 
  • Like
Likes DevilsAvocado and Pepper Mint
  • #168
Thanks man! :kiss:

... where do I collect the Prize? :rolleyes:

(:wink:)
 
  • #169
micromass said:
The OP got scared of the numbers :sorry:

No worries, there's nothing to fear but fear itself, this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end of numbers. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning of numbers. :nb)

Nonetheless, it's hard (impossible) to get any form of perspective on the extremely large numbers we have in this thread.

But, what almost drive me nuts, is that the 'small' and ridiculously general π (in physics & elsewhere), have an infinite number of decimals, that never repeats itself (only subsets), that is 'static random', i.e. we get the same sequence every time we look, but there is no way of predicting the next decimal (without calculations), and (if π is a normal number) — the entire works of William Shakespeare is encoded (A=01, B=02, etc) somewhere in this never ending story...

This is insane... who 'wrote' the algorithm for this craziness?? And where is this bugger 'stored'!? o0)

So, if we start by trying to visualize one million. That's easy, right? If we print one million digits in one row, with a 8pt font — how long would that paper be; 10, 20, 40 or maybe 100 meters?

Wrong. Check spoiler ...


33vk80k.jpg



I'm just waiting for Monty Python's Flying Circles ...

If you like this on, check out The Making of a Mile of Pi.

If we were to expand this technique a little bit — how many digits would we get in a turn around the Earth? The Earth radius is 6,378 km (equatorial), so let's check it out:

● [itex](2\pi\times6378/1.693)\times10^{6}=23,670,499,639\ digits[/itex]
23.67 Billion Digits on One Turn Around The Earth

● [itex]10^{23,670,499,639}[/itex]

The size of 23 Billion Digits (Bigger than Googol! But smaller than Googolplex ...)

● [itex]10^{12}/23,670,499,639=42.24\ turns[/itex]

The number of Turns to get One Trillion Digits

● [itex]10^{10^{12}} = 10^{1,000,000,000,000}[/itex]

The size of 42.24 Turns Around The Earth (Much bigger than Googol, but still smaller than Googolplex)

● [itex]10^{100}/23,670,499,639=4.224\times10^{89}\ turns[/itex]

Number of turns to get One Googol Digits

● [itex]10^{10^{100}} = 10^{10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000}[/itex]

The size of 4.224 x 1089 Turns Around The Earth (That's a Googolplex!)


1089 turns ... that's a neat little number, but there's something missing here, right?

If we assume that the paper is 0.1 mm thick, how thick (radius) would this pile of π be? Well, 0.1 mm is 0.0000001 km, and:

[itex]4.224\times10^{89}\times10^{-7} = 4.224\times10^{82}\ km[/itex]

That's a BIG roll of π! And it's a 'little' bit wrong as well ...

While the π roll expands, there will be room for more numbers on every turn, so the correct number of turns to get One Googol Digits is [itex]\color{Blue}{1.645\times10^{50}}[/itex]:

[itex](2\pi\times\color{Blue}{1.645\times10^{50}}\times10^{-7} / 1.693)\times10^{6}\times\color{Blue}{1.645\times10^{50}} = 10^{100}[/itex]

(This is actually wrong as well, the calculated circumference is for the last biggest turn, but I don't have the time/energy to do the exact calculation, the truth is somewhere between 1082 and 1050, so this is a 'generous' solution, but if there's a true magician mathematician out there, please be my guest and present the correct formula!)

The radius (for the 'generous' solution) is [itex]\color{Blue}{1.645\times10^{50}}\times10^{-7} = 1.645\times10^{43}\ km[/itex]

Gosh, 1043 km ... it's 150,000,000 km to the Sun ... and 7,000,000,000 km to Pluto ...

And one light-year is 9.4607 × 1015 m, or 9.461 trillion kilometres, or 9.461 × 1012 km.

[itex]1.645\times10^{43} / (9.461\times10^{12}) = 1.738\times10^{30}\ ly[/itex]

OMG, a π roll with a radius of 1.738 x 1030 light-years!? :woot:

Wikipedia:
45.7 x 109 ly = The comoving distance from the Earth to the edge of the visible universe is about 45.7 billion light-years in any direction; this is the comoving radius of the observable universe.


:wideeyed: :wideeyed: :wideeyed: :wideeyed: :wideeyed:
No comment.I think we got this covered, so let's move on to see what Ron Graham has to say. :H









So, if your head now feels like a Black Hole — that's perfectly normal! :biggrin:

500px-BH_LMC.png

 
Last edited:
  • #170
Also like how once we started getting into ∑ with BIG FOOTs and TREE(3)s as inputs, graham's number started to seem so tiny in my head.
 
  • Like
Likes Pepper Mint
  • #171
Could the biggest number be:

40



Seriously though, I found the video quite interesting. It's worth a watch.

Although most of the video describes transfinite (if not infinite) numbers, outside the scope of this thread, it's at least indirectly relevant in a few places.
 
  • #172
collinsmark said:
Could the biggest number be:

40
Some say the ultimate answer to everything is:

Answer_to_Life.png
:wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top