Biggest number you can think of using 30 characters or less

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Syringer

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Syringer
But then 10^80 takes up less characters than "Graham's number"

Do you realize that Graham's number is not 10^80, right?

It's "roughly 10 raised to a number that has 10^80 zeroes"

10^80 is the number of zeroes the number has that you're raising 10 to...

So if you were to write that out, it wouldn't be 10^80, it would be

10^X

Where X is a number with 10^80 zeros

"Graham's number" is 15 characters?

In those 15 characters you get

10^100000000000000000000000000000.......000

The number of zeroes there that I omitted is roughly 10^80

Or..10^10^80?

No I don't think you get it. The number itself has 10^80 zeroes.

For example, if I wanted to raise 10 by a number that had 10^2 zeroes, it would be:

10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

If I wanted to raise it by a number that had 10^3 zeroes, I would have to type out 1000 zeroes.

10^80 zeroes is...mind boggling.

10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

can also be written as

10^10^100 (which I believe is equivalent to 10^(10^100), similarly Graham's # can be written as 10^10^80--which is still considerably smaller than 99^99^99--which uses the same number of chars.

10^10^80

is not the same thing as

10^X

Where X is a number with 10^80 zeroes.

10^80 has waaaaay fewer zeroes than a number with 10^80 zeroes.

For example

10^2 = 100

A number with 10^2 zeroes is
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

10^3 = 1000

A number with 10^3 zeroes is

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

....

10^80 = big

A number with 10^80 zeroes is

OMG



So in conclusion

10^10^80 is very very very very small compared to

10^(a number with 10^80 zeroes)

 

[jonessoda]

Has anybody done hyper[g64](hyper[g64](g64))!!! yet?

Take the term in brackets next to the hyper operator to be the n of the hypern(x).

Edit: Or, hyper[g64](g64?g64?g64?g64)!!!. Which is bigger?

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: 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

I would claim that my number is the bare edge of practicality, and any number larger than it is impractical and therefore invalid

 

[Inspector Jihad]

number of girlz i've sex0rd

 

[Rubycon]

9.99*10^999999999999999999999!

 

[ViviTheMage]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
number of girlz i've sex0rd

you cant go negative...

 

[Epic Fail]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
number of girlz i've sex0rd

we are not looking for the definition of zero.

 

[compuwiz1]

9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9

Do I get a cookie?

 

[tasmanian]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9x9

Do I get a cookie?

For not getting the correct answer? No.

 

[Cogman]

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!

 

[Cattlegod]

all #s ever in this thread + 1

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
10^10^80

is not the same thing as

10^X

Where X is a number with 10^80 zeroes.

10^80 has waaaaay fewer zeroes than a number with 10^80 zeroes.

For example

10^2 = 100

A number with 10^2 zeroes is
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

10^3 = 1000

A number with 10^3 zeroes is

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

....

10^80 = big

A number with 10^80 zeroes is

OMG



So in conclusion

10^10^80 is very very very very small compared to

10^(a number with 10^80 zeroes)

Did you fail math?

Let me break it down for, using your own examples:

A number with 10^2 zeroes is
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

= 10^10^2 = 10^(10^2)

10^3 = 1000

A number with 10^3 zeroes is

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


which is equivalent to = 10^10^3 = 10^(10^3)

So...a number with 10^80 zeros in it = 10^(10^80).

Make sense?

 

[Reel]

42

 

[IronWing]

Infinity and beyond plus 64k

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Syringer
So...a number with 10^80 zeros in it = 10^(10^80).

Make sense?

What is a larger number?

1) 1,000,000,000
2) 10^9
3) 1 followed by one billion zeros

Figure it out yet?

Lets say hypothetically Graham's number was 10 raised to a number that had 10^2 zeros.

10^(10^2) = 1 x 10^100

10^100 = 1 x 10^100

But if you have 10 raised to a number with 10^2 zeros:

10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

That is much larger than 10^10^2.

So in closing, you are wrong. For the tenth time.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Syringer
So...a number with 10^80 zeros in it = 10^(10^80).

Make sense?

What is a larger number?

1) 1,000,000,000
2) 10^9
3) 1 followed by one billion zeros

Figure it out yet?

Lets say hypothetically Graham's number was 10 raised to a number that had 10^2 zeros.

10^(10^2) = 1 x 10^100

10^100 = 1 x 10^100

But if you have 10 raised to a number with 10^2 zeros:

10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

That is much larger than 10^10^2.

So in closing, you are wrong. For the tenth time.

My rough estimate for Graham's number in the other thread was erroneous. 10 raised to a number with 10^80 zeroes is 10^10^10^80, which is a insanely large number but still much, much smaller than Graham's #.

 

[Syringer]

Man, how retarded can you people be, serio?

10^X = 10 * 10 .... * 10, done X times.

10^2 = 100 --> 2 zeros
10^5 = 100,000 -- > 5 zeros
10^100 = 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 --> 100 zeros.
Hence, X, in the term 10^X, refers to how many 0s there are after the one.

Hopefully you're still with me...

Now, let's take it a step further, and let X = 10^9, what follows is:

10^10^9 = 10^(10^9) = 1 followed by 10^9 (or 1 billion) zeros (absolutely miniscule in the context of this thread)

Not hard.

But if you have 10 raised to a number with 10^2 zeros:

10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Or...more simply, that is 10^10^100 = 10^(10^100) = 10^ 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Raise your hand if you have any questions. Hey you, spit out that gum.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Syringer
So...a number with 10^80 zeros in it = 10^(10^80).

Make sense?

What is a larger number?

1) 1,000,000,000
2) 10^9
3) 1 followed by one billion zeros

Figure it out yet?

Lets say hypothetically Graham's number was 10 raised to a number that had 10^2 zeros.

10^(10^2) = 1 x 10^100

10^100 = 1 x 10^100

But if you have 10 raised to a number with 10^2 zeros:

10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

That is much larger than 10^10^2.

So in closing, you are wrong. For the tenth time.

My rough estimate for Graham's number in the other thread was erroneous. 10 raised to a number with 10^80 zeroes is 10^10^10^80, which is a insanely large number but still much, much smaller than Graham's #.

That makes a lot more sense now.

I knew it was larger than 10^10^80 but then was getting 10^10^10^80 based on your definition that I repeated but that made no sense knowing how it really fits into that wikipedia list...

Seeing as

10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10^10 is only about 1/3 of the way down this list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L....2C_in_numerical_order

So Graham's number was never

Originally posted by: Syringer
Graham's # can be written as 10^10^80

But it's not 10^10^10^80 either, which is where Syringer was getting his figure from...

So in summary Graham's number is really big?

 

[Random Variable]

Graham's number is actually constructed by powers of 3. So it's basically a ridiculously long chain of 3^3^3^3^3.... The exact length of that chain, however, is unclear.

 

[mh47g]

F^F^F^F^F^F^F^F^F^F^F^F^F^F^FF

/thread

 

[gsethi]

No one mentioned Eleventy Billion yet ? ATOT is lagging

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: gsethi
No one mentioned Eleventy Billion yet ? ATOT is lagging

eleventy billion times threeve

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

pi^9^9^9 without decimal sign

 

[Flyback]

{absolute infinite}

19 characters.

It's a set... not "an infinity" as per your rules reject... it just happens to contain that as one of it's elements :laugh:

 

[brxndxn]

$Texas