|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Alex: I have this instinctive feeling that there should be a way to express an unimaginatively large finite number in a minimal space. It's been suggested that G(G(10^303!)!)!, is a pretty good one. However, G(G(10^999!)!)!, is obviously bigger and so I suppose one might start by attempting to express this number in even fewer characters. However, if an unimaginatively larger number could be expressed in just a few more characters that would be all right too
It's like defining Type-2 and -3 words. Hard to express though a few liberal thinkers--eta and zm for instance--seem to catch on. As the Zen master might say, allow your intuition freedom to roam without being excessively judgmental
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,819 |
Quote:
As the Zen master might say, allow your intuition freedom to roam without being excessively judgmental
Anyway, for your purpose of expressing a vast but finite number to a non-scientific audience I would actually not use the factorial ! or any other operands and stick to simply writing the number using strictly numerals. For any given number of numerals used, a power tower or tetration as it is called will be the highest number.
9^9 is greater than 99 9^(9^9) is greater than 999 and is in fact an incredibly large number. If you were to actually evaluate that number, it would have 369,693,100 digits! Read more about it here. Excerpt follows:
9^9^9
Date: 09/10/97 at 18:53:43 From: Sean H Subject: 9 ^ 9 ^ 9
Dr. Math,
In my Algebra II class, my teacher asked us what the largest number we can write is, only with a limit of 3 digits. I answered 9 ^ 9 ^ 9 (nine to the ninth to the ninth) and was correct.
Getting home, and on my computer however, I set out to find the answer to that question. 9 ^ 9 was easy: 387420489. But now, how in the world to do 9 ^ 387420489?
I tried writing a C++ program to do it, only the largest data type you can use, an unsigned long, only supports up to 10 digits. That wasn't getting me anywhere. On the Internet, I saw one person say that the answer would have 300,000,000 digits! Is this true?
So my question: Is it really that large an answer? And is there a way I could find the answer? If it really is that big, how long would it take to answer on a large mainframe? (I'm talking Cray here). Would it be hours, days, months, or years?
Thanks a lot, Sean
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 09/25/97 at 15:47:28 From: Doctor Ken Subject: Re: 9 ^ 9 ^ 9
Hi!
To find out how many digits some number has, the best way is to take the log base 10 of that number and round down to the nearest integer, and add 1.
For instance, 42 has 2 digits, and the log base 10 of 42 is about 1.62325: round that down and you get 1, add 1 and you get 2. 34578 has 5 digits, and its log base 10 is 4.5388: round it down and you get 4, add 1 to get 5. 1000 has 4 digits and its log base 10 is 3. Round down to get 3, add 1 to get 4.
So we want to find the log base 10 of your number, 9^387420489. Let's do it:
Log (9^387420489) = 387420489 * Log(9) (Pull out the power) = 387420489 * 0.954243 (do the log) = 3.6969309963 x 10^8 (by calculator) = 369693099.63
So your number has 369,693,100 digits. That's a big number!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
What's the macro for the upside down v--thanks guys
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Fal: Thank you exceedingly for your participation, but I am confused about Graham's Number. I have heard it expressed as G(63) or as just plain G, but I don't understand how it can still be Guiness' winner if G(65) is bigger and could just as easily be used in a new problem http://thesaurus.maths.org/mmkb/entry.html?action=entryById&id=2525Not good at math
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
Quote:
What's the macro for the upside down v--thanks guys
d'oh. SHIFT-6: ^
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
What's the macro for the upside down v?
What's a macro macro macro, dada? The word, macro, as are all other words, is synonymous with drive. Dada!
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Dale, no matter what specific number one is given, she could easily construct a bigger number by adding 1, or a much bigger number by taking the factorial or the graham's function of that number. The interesting thing about Graham's number is that it's the biggest number that was actually used non-parenthetically. http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/cyc/g/graham.htm
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773 |
Fal, thank you for that link, and you have to forgive my abysmal mathematical ignorance, but I don't understand it. Is Graham's number G or G(63); and if the latter, how is 63 the upper limit? And does it somehow depend upon the number 3? And why would Guiness cite it if it isn't, inasmuch as upon acceptance all the math whizzes in the world would immediately set about devising a problem using a bigger number
tsu: Thank you for ^. That in using a keyboard some 72 years I had never found occasion for it, is testimony to my mathematical vincibility. For my benefit (and others of my ilk) you might explain its use and limitations; that is, where parens are called for, when not, etc
zm: Not yet anyhow
Myr: Trouble with parallel universes is that each one would have to be serial also. at risk of offending some present, this seems unmanageable even if She is omnipotent
dalehileman
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
Thank you for ^. That in using a keyboard some 72 years I had never found occasion for it, is testimony to my mathematical vincibility. For my benefit (and others of my ilk) you might explain its use and limitations; that is, where parens are called for, when not, etc
not me, bro. I don' be no steenken mathematician for about 6^2 years now.
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,421
Members9,182
|
Most Online3,341 Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
0 members (),
805
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|