Biggest number you can think of using 30 characters or less

[silverpig]

F???????????????????????????F


I'm assuming they realize I'm using hex.

 

[BrownTown]

9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats the biggest I can think of, I don't know any operation that diverges faster than the factorial operation but I am sure there is one...

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: silverpig
9???????????????????????????9

That's only 29 characters.
9????????????????????????????9

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: silverpig
F???????????????????????????F


I'm assuming they realize I'm using hex.

I declare silverpig the winner.

Oh, wait a second... That's 29 character.

F????????????????????????????F

There. Now I declare ME the winner.

 

[Jeff7]

"Biggest number in existence"

What do I win?


Of course, since this is written on a notecard, and not typed, why waste characters on the ^ symbol?


.....................................................9
....................................................9
...................................................9
..................................................9
................................................9
..............................................9
............................................9
..........................................9
........................................9
......................................9
....................................9
..................................9
.................................9
...............................9
..............................9
............................9
..........................9
........................9
......................9
....................9
..................9
................9
..............9
............9
..........9
........9
......9
....9
..9
9

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
"Biggest number in existence"

What do I win?


Of course, since this is written on a notecard, and not typed, why waste characters on the ^ symbol?

Because your notation is meaningless. Google "knuth's up arrow notation". Those numbers are incredibly large. Far far far beyond comprehension. To scale, if a googleplex is the dot on top of this letter: i
Then what Browntown answered with is far far far far greater than the size of the universe. In fact, if the size of the universe were now scaled down to the size of the dot on that "i", and that dot scaled down accordingly to an incomprehensibly small dot, then Browntown's answer is still far far far larger.

If you repeated this process continuously for as many atoms as there are in the universe, Browntown's answer is STILL larger.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: silverpig
F???????????????????????????F


I'm assuming they realize I'm using hex.

I declare silverpig the winner.

Oh, wait a second... That's 29 character.

F????????????????????????????F

There. Now I declare ME the winner.

What's larger

Graham's# or F???????F

I had not seen ? notation before today so I don't really know what it means and I'm too lazy to try to think right now.

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_numbers
Graham's Number is larger than "( 10 ? 10 ? 64 ? 2 )"
and 10????9 is written as ( 10 ? 9 ? 4 )
10??????????10 is on their list too, well below Graham's number

So is

Graham's#?Graham's#?Graham's# larger?

 

[Sumguy]

Lets see, largest number with 30 characters huh?

Graham's#!??????????Graham's#!

Yeah, that's a factoral.

Deal with it.

 

[swtethan]

My number > *

 

[BrownTown]

Clearly in the end this all boils down to an argument over symantics specifically what "symbols" are allowed, can we use 'F' and a base of 16, and if so then why not Z and a base of 36? What about all these different operators, does this 'up notation' count, could we then create our own notation indicating even ggreater numbers, same for defined constants, Grahams number, Google, Googleplex, what about greek symbols for different constants? In the end this is a poorly defined problem until such time as a closed set of numbers and operators are generated.

 

[bobsmith1492]

99999999999999999999999999999!

Wait...

9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9!

 

[Random Variable]

I think my approximation for Graham's # was way too small.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: silverpig
F???????????????????????????F


I'm assuming they realize I'm using hex.

I declare silverpig the winner.

Oh, wait a second... That's 29 character.

F????????????????????????????F

There. Now I declare ME the winner.

What's larger

Graham's# or F???????F

I had not seen ? notation before today so I don't really know what it means and I'm too lazy to try to think right now.

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_numbers
Graham's Number is larger than "( 10 ? 10 ? 64 ? 2 )"
and 10????9 is written as ( 10 ? 9 ? 4 )
10??????????10 is on their list too, well below Graham's number

So is

Graham's#?Graham's#?Graham's# larger?

Hmmm. I may be larger. I hadn't googled Graham's number before posting. I was thinking that it was 3^^^^3 or something like that. Apparently it's much larger than that. (3^^^^3 is already larger than the number of atoms in the universe.)

Graham's#????????????Graham's# would be larger.

Incidentally, the factorial notation is pathetically weak for making large numbers compared to simply adding on another up arrow.

Graham's number at math.wolfram
Ahhhh, I was thinking that graham's number was just 3^^^^3. I see how it's defined now. Yes, uparrows sandwiched by graham's number would be the largest possible number anyone could write.... no, wait a second...

Using the definition of grahams's number: g_64, how about:
g_(graham's#????????graham's#)

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Ok, I give up now

 

[Sumguy]

Completely unrelated, but I like it

Mandelbrot Set

The song would be more entertaining if I understood half of the mathematical concepts he was singing about

 

[Eeezee]

Vol of universe in Plancks^3

(and yes, since I said it was a number in a volume element, it is actually a number)

The Planck Length (a Planck)is the smallest length in all of theoretical physics, and is the length of a string in string theory. The universe is the largest object in existence (it's everything). The biggest REAL number in the universe would have to be the volume of the universe measured in Planck Lengths, that is the largest object measured in the largest way with the smallest units.

I chose to ignore time as a 4th dimensional volume element, in the assumption that we've stopped the universe at some arbitrary moment and then measured its volume in 3-dimensional space (therefore time is ignored). I also ignored the other dimensions of negligible size in string theory because they volume of the universe is so much larger than any contribution from these other dimensions - in other words, I am only considering spatial dimensions that we can see.

I win. The volume of the universe in the smallest units is the largest conceivable number that has any meaning. Adding 1 to my number would be meaningless because that number wouldn't technically exist yet in physical terms (since the universe isn't that big yet). Therefore, any number bigger than the number I've described could only be "infinity" which the original post decided was an invalid choice. In other words, the number I described + 1 Planck Length^3 = infinity. Therefore the number I described is the largest number.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: silverpig
9???????????????????????????9

That's only 29 characters.
9????????????????????????????9

I guess I lose cause I can't even count right

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Clearly in the end this all boils down to an argument over symantics specifically what "symbols" are allowed, can we use 'F' and a base of 16, and if so then why not Z and a base of 36? What about all these different operators, does this 'up notation' count, could we then create our own notation indicating even ggreater numbers, same for defined constants, Grahams number, Google, Googleplex, what about greek symbols for different constants? In the end this is a poorly defined problem until such time as a closed set of numbers and operators are generated.

No, it's taken care of...

Be precise enough for any reasonable modern mathematician to determine exactly what number you?ve named, by consulting only your card and, if necessary, the published literature.

Hex is pretty standard, base 36 isn't. The up notation is in published literature.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Well whatever we come up with, let's let this guy know http://forums.anandtech.com/me...keyword1=million+count

 

[Sumguy]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Vol of universe in Plancks^3

(and yes, since I said it was a number in a volume element, it is actually a number)

The Planck Length (a Planck)is the smallest length in all of theoretical physics, and is the length of a string in string theory. The universe is the largest object in existence (it's everything). The biggest REAL number in the universe would have to be the volume of the universe measured in Planck Lengths, that is the largest object measured in the largest way with the smallest units.

I chose to ignore time as a 4th dimensional volume element, in the assumption that we've stopped the universe at some arbitrary moment and then measured its volume in 3-dimensional space (therefore time is ignored). I also ignored the other dimensions of negligible size in string theory because they volume of the universe is so much larger than any contribution from these other dimensions - in other words, I am only considering spatial dimensions that we can see.

I win. The volume of the universe in the smallest units is the largest conceivable number that has any meaning. Adding 1 to my number would be meaningless because that number wouldn't technically exist yet in physical terms (since the universe isn't that big yet). Therefore, any number bigger than the number I've described could only be "infinity" which the original post decided was an invalid choice. In other words, the number I described + 1 Planck Length^3 = infinity. Therefore the number I described is the largest number.

Wouldn't you be assuming that the number has to be bound by some practicality? From what I understand, Graham's Number came about by trying to find...something in relation to an imaginary cube. Awesome, but I don't see how you can apply that number to the real world And people have been using it

 

[conehead433]

You didn't specify alpha or numeric characters. Hmmmmm....

 

[BrownTown]

Well all I will say is that if you get down to it you will find that this is a paradox and impossible to solve ALA

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: zerocool1
this belongs in highly technical methinks

uh, more like highly stupid.

Oh wait, that's ATOT.

 

[RandomFool]

one-hundred and one

 

[drinkmorejava]

while(1){i*=i;}