RE: Is it ever physically possible for a broken egg to reassemble into an unbroken one?
June 10, 2020 at 12:53 am
(June 9, 2020 at 6:59 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(June 9, 2020 at 12:42 am)Paleophyte Wrote: On a side note, googol and googolplex have always failed to impress me. They're stunt numbers based on the number of fingers on your hands. If really big numbers is all you want then 4^^4 is a bit better than 50% more digits than a googolplex
I thought about this a bit more and it is wrong. 4^^4 is about 10^10^154. A number with 50% more digits than a googolplex would be about
10^(1.5*10^100), so far less than 10^10^101 (which would have 10 times as many digits as a googolplex). The number 4^^4 is about a googolplex to the power of 10^50, so (googolplex)^\sqrt(googol)
By the way, 10^^10 is called Decker.
Why are people so impressed by the number of fingers on their hands? 9^^9 is so much more elegant.
If you want to be hateful you just take one complex irrational number and raise it to the power of another complex irrational. Or to the superpower if you want to get really nasty.
