The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Pezevenk on August 20, 2020, 06:15:52 AM

This is a thread about notating a larger number than the previous poster. That's it.
Well, there's a few more rules.
1) You don't have to actually write it down. You just have to appropriately describe it.
2) Your description must correspond to one and only one natural number.
3) You can't use primitive semantic vocabulary. That means you can only use mathematical symbols to describe the number. You can explain what the symbols mean but you have to figure out how to write down what you want to say with mathematical symbols.
4) It's better if you prove that your number is larger than the previous one. For some really large numbers, it may be a bit difficult to figure out which is larger. You can just nominate your number and I will try to figure out if it really is bigger than the previous one.
It is actually possible to win the game. To win the game all you have to do is find a number which no one can figure out how to make larger IN A MEANINGFUL WAY for at least a week.
By "in a meaningful way" I mean that answers such as simply adding 1 to that number, or multiplying it, or just using whatever the previous poster used but one more time, it's not really larger in a meaningful way. Of course that rule is highly subjective and we can collectively decide who came up with the most impressive number.
Anyways, I'll start: 1

The first prime number.

The first prime number.
One more than the previous post.

The first prime squared.

The first prime squared.
Well, you should be using mathematical notation, but it's OK, I'll let it pass.
Now for the largest number I can think of:
100

The first prime squared.
Well, you should be using mathematical notation, but it's OK, I'll let it pass.
Now for the largest number I can think of:
100
My larger number is 100.
In base 11.

The first prime squared.
Well, you should be using mathematical notation, but it's OK, I'll let it pass.
Now for the largest number I can think of:
100
My larger number is 100.
In base 11.
121 then. Alright. What if I do 121 in base 100 then?
(and yes, I mean 1 2 1, not 1 21 or 12 1 or anything like that. So number is 10000+200+1=10201 translated to regular base 10).

Googolplexian^{(Googolplexian)}
(10^{(10(10100))})^{(10(10(10100)))}
A googol is 10^{100}
A googolplex is 1 with a googol of zeros or mathematically: 10^{(10100)}
A googolplexian is 1 with a googleplex of zeros or mathematically: 10^{(10(10100))}

As soon as this thread started I wondered how many posts it would be until the googol showed up.
We now know the answer is 7.
So my number is: googolplexian + 7

As soon as this thread started I wondered how many posts it would be until the googol showed up.
We now know the answer is 7.
So my number is: googolplexian + 7
You didn't follow the rules, that's not larger than my number which is a googolplexian to the googolplexian power

As soon as this thread started I wondered how many posts it would be until the googol showed up.
We now know the answer is 7.
So my number is: googolplexian + 7
You didn't follow the rules, that's not larger than my number which is a googolplexian to the googolplexian power
Right, got careless in my reply there. But your post doesn't have a number. :)
To correct for my mistake: Googolplexian^{(Googolplexian)} + 7
For your post: Googolplexian^{(Googolplexian)} + 8
For THIS post: Googolplexian^{(Googolplexian)} + 9

Googolplexian^{(Googolplexian)} + 10

Googolplexian^{(Googolplexian)} + Googolplexian

Graham's number

Oh, shit, another counting game. ;D

Googolplexian^{GoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexian}

Googolplexian^{GoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexian!}

This is a thread about notating a larger number than the previous poster. That's it.
4) It's better if you prove that your number is larger than the previous one. For some really large numbers, it may be a bit difficult to figure out which is larger. You can just nominate your number and I will try to figure out if it really is bigger than the previous one.
It is actually possible to win the game. To win the game all you have to do is find a number which no one can figure out how to make larger IN A MEANINGFUL WAY for at least a week.
By "in a meaningful way" I mean that answers such as simply adding 1 to that number, or multiplying it, or just using whatever the previous poster used but one more time, it's not really larger in a meaningful way. Of course that rule is highly subjective and we can collectively decide who came up with the most impressive number.
Guys, this thread isn't in complete nonsense so how about sticking to the spirit thd OP asked for?

∞^{∞} +1

.
(https://i.imgur.com/2SzLgv9.jpg?1)

∞^{∞} +1
Infinity is a concept. Not a number
Also infinity+1 is still infinity

∞^{∞} +1
Infinity is a concept. Not a number
Also infinity+1 is still infinity
Also there are more irrational numbers than rational numbers.

Googolplexian^{GoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexian!}
Still not as big as Grahams number mentioned earlier. The game is about numbers getting bigger, not smaller
Anyway, a number even bigger than Grahams number that's not fooling around
TREE(3)

This number is pretty big . . .
(https://i.imgur.com/zlctkNB.jpg?1)

Graham's number
Googolplexian^{GoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexian!}
Still not as big as Grahams number mentioned earlier. The game is about numbers getting bigger, not smaller
Anyway, a number even bigger than Grahams number that's not fooling around
TREE(3)
You have define Graham's Number and TREE(3) mathematically and explain symbols. Maybe you should read the rules before posting.

Graham's number
Googolplexian^{GoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexian!}
Still not as big as Grahams number mentioned earlier. The game is about numbers getting bigger, not smaller
Anyway, a number even bigger than Grahams number that's not fooling around
TREE(3)
You have define Graham's Number and TREE(3) mathematically and explain symbols. Maybe you should read the rules before posting.
That's like saying define 10. Or a million. Or a googolplexian.
They are all numberss. Graham's number or TREE(3) is still a finite number. It's not a concept. It's valid mathematically
Otherwise you may as well fill the thread with silly googolplexian + 1 replies
Quit your moaning and come up with something larger. I haven't put up the highest number surely

Graham's Number + 1

Graham's Number + 1
TREE(3) is already orders of magnitude larger than Graham's number
So your reply is lower despite your attempt to show off how silly you can be

Graham's number
Googolplexian^{GoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexian!}
Still not as big as Grahams number mentioned earlier. The game is about numbers getting bigger, not smaller
Anyway, a number even bigger than Grahams number that's not fooling around
TREE(3)
You have define Graham's Number and TREE(3) mathematically and explain symbols. Maybe you should read the rules before posting.
That's like saying define 10. Or a million. Or a googolplexian.
They are all numberss. Graham's number or TREE(3) is still a finite number. It's not a concept. It's valid mathematically
Otherwise you may as well fill the thread with silly googolplexian + 1 replies
Quit your moaning and come up with something larger. I haven't put up the highest number surely
Well he's right technically. You were supposed to have to define your numbers using common established mathematical notation. For example to define Graham's number you would have to use Knuth's arrow notation. But no one stuck to that rule so whatever, fuck it lol

Graham's number
Googolplexian^{GoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexianGoogolplexian!}
Still not as big as Grahams number mentioned earlier. The game is about numbers getting bigger, not smaller
Anyway, a number even bigger than Grahams number that's not fooling around
TREE(3)
You have define Graham's Number and TREE(3) mathematically and explain symbols. Maybe you should read the rules before posting.
That's like saying define 10. Or a million. Or a googolplexian.
They are all numberss. Graham's number or TREE(3) is still a finite number. It's not a concept. It's valid mathematically
Otherwise you may as well fill the thread with silly googolplexian + 1 replies
Quit your moaning and come up with something larger. I haven't put up the highest number surely
Well he's right technically. You were supposed to have to define your numbers using common established mathematical notation. For example to define Graham's number you would have to use Knuth's arrow notation. But no one stuck to that rule so whatever, fuck it lol
I did. I mathematically defined a googol, a googolplex, and a googolplexian.

Graham's Number + 1
TREE(3) is already orders of magnitude larger than Graham's number
So your reply is lower despite your attempt to show off how silly you can be
TREE(4)

Graham's Number + 1
TREE(3) is already orders of magnitude larger than Graham's number
So your reply is lower despite your attempt to show off how silly you can be
TREE(4)
Not a recognised number
You know what, why dont we just skip straight to the end. Past Rayos number. This dude articulates them all pretty good
https://www.quora.com/WhatareGrahamsnumberTREE3SCG13SSCG3RayosnumberandFishNumber7/answer/YingZheng67
/end thread :P

Graham's Number + 1
TREE(3) is already orders of magnitude larger than Graham's number
So your reply is lower despite your attempt to show off how silly you can be
TREE(4)
Not a recognised number
You know what, why dont we just skip straight to the end. Past Rayos number. This dude articulates them all pretty good
https://www.quora.com/WhatareGrahamsnumberTREE3SCG13SSCG3RayosnumberandFishNumber7/answer/YingZheng67
/end thread :P
Eh I already knew the trick of using model theory to write out the largest number expressible using a certain number of symbols. And I actually know how to write it out in mathematical notation but I didn't want to post it because that would just confuse most people. But Rayo's number just uses "just" a googol symbols. You could just chose to use more. Or you could just do Rayo's number +1.

We all realize that numbers are just stand in symbols for thoughts and ideas to help explain, regulate and normalize information and relationships, right?
:D

The numbers aren't the symbols, they are what is being symbolized.

The numbers aren't the symbols, they are what is being symbolized.
That's what I meant to say. ;)

The numbers aren't the symbols, they are what is being symbolized.
That's what I meant to say. ;)
Yeah I figured. But it's an important distinction because it confuses lots of people. When you can't distinguish the map from the territory you run into all sorts of issues, for example being confused about why 0.9999... is the same number as 1 when it comes to math, or getting lost when it comes to navigating.

But it's an important distinction because it confuses lots of people.
Did I confuse you?

But it's an important distinction because it confuses lots of people.
Did I confuse you?
I've just grown used to pointing it out every time I see it. The internet is full of people with "proofs" that 0.999...=/= 1.

But it's an important distinction because it confuses lots of people.
Did I confuse you?
I've just grown used to pointing it out every time I see it. The internet is full of people with "proofs" that 0.999...=/= 1.
It's about precision and approximation.
Also 0.99999999999999999999999999... is not a large number.

But it's an important distinction because it confuses lots of people.
Did I confuse you?
I've just grown used to pointing it out every time I see it. The internet is full of people with "proofs" that 0.999...=/= 1.
It's about precision and approximation.
Also 0.99999999999999999999999999... is not a large number.
See that's the issue, it is not an approximation, it is the same number.
But why do you think it isn't large? Compared to 0.000001 it is pretty large.... ;)

But it's an important distinction because it confuses lots of people.
Did I confuse you?
I've just grown used to pointing it out every time I see it. The internet is full of people with "proofs" that 0.999...=/= 1.
It's about precision and approximation.
Also 0.99999999999999999999999999... is not a large number.
See that's the issue, it is not an approximation, it is the same number.
But why do you think it isn't large? Compared to 0.000001 it is pretty large.... ;)
It's minute.

It's minute.
It's hour.

It's minute.
It's hour.
adjective not noun.
Made me lol ;D

I have a feeling people have been watching numberpile on YouTube.
Here is rayo’s number.

A
Where
A=1
while 1=1
do (
A:=A+1
)

A
Where
A=1
while 1=1
do (
A:=A+1
)
How are you storing that value?

A
Where
A=1
while 1=1
do (
A:=A+1
)
How are you storing that value?
It is a programming language of my own devising. It does what I want it to.

A
Where
A=1
while 1=1
do (
A:=A+1
)
How are you storing that value?
The Ghostwheel computer could probably store a number big enough as it is built across multiple dimensions and can access entire universes as data. Just have to make sure it doesn't reformat our own universe as storage.
You could probably store a big enough number in the singularity running down the center of The Way. Just have to fight the Jarts for control of it first.
Then again, asking a Culture Mind would likely be the easiest. I'm sure they could build you something or just do it themselves.
Maybe V'ger?

A
Where
A=1
while 1=1
do (
A:=A+1
)
That is not a number. Also not mathematical notation.