Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Re: Large numbers revisited #165824
02/13/07 06:02 PM
02/13/07 06:02 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
D
dalehileman Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
dalehileman  Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
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
Re: Large numbers revisited #165825
02/13/07 07:54 PM
02/13/07 07:54 PM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Vermont
Buffalo Shrdlu Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Buffalo Shrdlu  Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Vermont
big-ass
etc.
almostifinity


formerly known as etaoin...
Re: Large numbers revisited #165826
02/13/07 08:25 PM
02/13/07 08:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,814
Spam Factory
A
Alex Williams Offline
Pooh-Bah
Alex Williams  Offline
Pooh-Bah
A
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,814
Spam Factory
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!

Re: Large numbers revisited #165827
02/15/07 03:12 PM
02/15/07 03:12 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
D
dalehileman Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
dalehileman  Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
What's the macro for the upside down v--thanks guys


dalehileman
Re: Large numbers revisited #165828
02/15/07 03:35 PM
02/15/07 03:35 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
D
dalehileman Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
dalehileman  Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
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=2525

Not good at math


dalehileman
Re: Large numbers revisited #165829
02/15/07 04:52 PM
02/15/07 04:52 PM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,538
this too shall pass
tsuwm Offline
Carpal Tunnel
tsuwm  Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,538
this too shall pass
Quote:

What's the macro for the upside down v--thanks guys




d'oh.
SHIFT-6: ^

Re: Macro ... Pollo ... #165830
02/15/07 05:05 PM
02/15/07 05:05 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
R'lyeh
zmjezhd Offline
Carpal Tunnel
zmjezhd  Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
R'lyeh
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.
Re: Macro ... Pollo ... #165831
02/15/07 05:54 PM
02/15/07 05:54 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,523
Virginia, USA
TheFallibleFiend Offline
veteran
TheFallibleFiend  Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,523
Virginia, USA

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

Re: Macro ... Pollo ... #165832
02/15/07 06:07 PM
02/15/07 06:07 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
D
dalehileman Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
dalehileman  Offline OP
Pooh-Bah
D
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,773
Apple Valley, CA, USA
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
Re: Macro ... Pollo ... #165833
02/15/07 06:24 PM
02/15/07 06:24 PM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,538
this too shall pass
tsuwm Offline
Carpal Tunnel
tsuwm  Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,538
this too shall pass
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.

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Jackie 

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,883
Posts224,829
Members9,056
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
Nikki1221, Veezkneez, LOC, Luna, wordie
9056 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 240 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
LOC 1
Top Posters(All Time)
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,538
LukeJavan8 9,157
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2018 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1
(Release build 20180111)
Page Time: 0.022s Queries: 13 (0.005s) Memory: 3.1848 MB (Peak: 3.3617 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2018-06-20 11:32:09 UTC