Stop it! This is all to much for my fragile little mind. I was going to hoover the stairs today but fuckit, I'll hit the drink instead.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
Graham's Number
|
Stop it! This is all to much for my fragile little mind. I was going to hoover the stairs today but fuckit, I'll hit the drink instead.
It's amazing 'science' always seems to 'find' whatever it is funded for, and never the oppsite. Drich.
(February 16, 2018 at 9:37 am)Succubus Wrote: Stop it! This is all to much for my fragile little mind. I was going to hoover the stairs today but fuckit, I'll hit the drink instead. There should be a name in future DSM books for what we're suffering from when we conceive of such numbers, and figure out what treatments would be effective for people like us. Nobody deserves to go through all this pain and suffering just because of a number.
And yet, these numbers are all *finite*.
BTW, read 'observable universe' in place of 'universe above'. RE: Graham's Number
February 18, 2018 at 10:04 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2018 at 10:08 am by GrandizerII.)
(February 15, 2018 at 9:49 am)polymath257 Wrote: I was thinking about numbers like this on the other thread. So I finally got around to reading the first link, and HOLY FUCK! I didn't even know how badly Graham's number paled in comparison to Tree(3). Tree(3) is to Graham's Number as Graham's Number is to any number that we can conceive of without going insanity to the googolthe power! It's FUCKING HUGE, WAY WAY WAY WAY HUGER THAN GRAHAMS NUMBER!!!!!! It's "makes me want to commit suicide" HUGE (joking, joking, but it almost makes me feel this way). RE: Graham's Number
February 18, 2018 at 11:18 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2018 at 12:16 pm by polymath257.)
I just found this link. It has a fairly good, but technical description and characterization of large numbers. TREE(3) is not described (at least not from what I skimmed).
http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html (February 18, 2018 at 10:04 am)Grandizer Wrote:(February 15, 2018 at 9:49 am)polymath257 Wrote: I was thinking about numbers like this on the other thread. And, just to blow your mind further, look at the SSCG function. SSCG(3) is *much* larger than TREE(TREE(TREE(.....TREE(3)...))) where the number of appearances of TREE is TREE(3). And it comes up in actual mathematics! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman%2...G_function And for more discussion: http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Googology_Wiki (February 18, 2018 at 11:18 am)polymath257 Wrote: I just found this link. It has a fairly good, but technical description and characterization of large numbers. TREE(3) is not described (at least not from what I skimmed). TREE(3) of them? Explosion galore!!! Whats just as crazy is that TREE(2) is just 3, but then add one level and its GHDHFNJFNVNVDHHXHXXJXJXBFHFBDJDJJDHDHFHDJDJXHHXHHDHXJXJCHCHCJCJCJCJCJCJXJJXHXHXHZBDBDBDBHSJJSJSJDFC |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Is zero a natural number? | Jehanne | 81 | 7158 |
July 16, 2023 at 7:29 am Last Post: Angrboda |
|
Euclid proved that there are an infinite number of prime numbers. | Jehanne | 7 | 924 |
March 14, 2021 at 8:26 am Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama |
|
This number is illegal in the USA | Aractus | 13 | 4693 |
May 7, 2016 at 10:51 pm Last Post: J a c k |
|
The Magical Number 9 | Rhondazvous | 25 | 5074 |
December 30, 2015 at 4:47 pm Last Post: The Grand Nudger |
|
Tricky Number Sequence Puzzle | GrandizerII | 16 | 6027 |
January 20, 2015 at 2:35 am Last Post: Whateverist |
|
Number crunching curios | pocaracas | 24 | 9273 |
January 4, 2014 at 2:14 am Last Post: Belac Enrobso |
|
The nature of number | jonb | 82 | 40015 |
October 28, 2012 at 11:02 pm Last Post: jonb |
|
number puzzle 1-8 | aufis | 5 | 12951 |
April 24, 2010 at 6:44 am Last Post: aufis |