That's a pretty big number

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I tried to punch it into Calculator; it said, and I quote: "Invalid input for function"

You can't punch it into a calculator unless the calculator understands up-arrow notation (which I myself don't understand).

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I tried to punch it into Calculator; it said, and I quote: "Invalid input for function"

You can't punch it into a calculator unless the calculator understands up-arrow notation (which I myself don't understand).

The way you described it is 10^(10^80) - 10^80 has 10^80 zeroes, no? (10^1 = 10 = 1 zero, 10^2 = 100 = 2 zeroes... 10^80 -> 80 zeroes)

I see no problem other than it is just a huge number. What's this "up-arrow notation?"

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I tried to punch it into Calculator; it said, and I quote: "Invalid input for function"

You can't punch it into a calculator unless the calculator understands up-arrow notation (which I myself don't understand).

The way you described it is 10^(10^80) - 10^80 has 10^80 zeroes, no? (10^1 = 10 = 1 zero, 10^2 = 100 = 2 zeroes... 10^80 -> 80 zeroes)

I see no problem other than it is just a huge number. What's this "up-arrow notation?"

No, 10^80 has 80 zeroes.

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I tried to punch it into Calculator; it said, and I quote: "Invalid input for function"

You can't punch it into a calculator unless the calculator understands up-arrow notation (which I myself don't understand).

The way you described it is 10^(10^80) - 10^80 has 10^80 zeroes, no? (10^1 = 10 = 1 zero, 10^2 = 100 = 2 zeroes... 10^80 -> 80 zeroes)

I see no problem other than it is just a huge number. What's this "up-arrow notation?"

No, 10^80 has 80 zeroes.

??? That's what I said...

 

[LS21]

1) whats the point
2) why cant i name a number after myself? LS21's number = Sum (Googolplex ^ n^Googolplex^); n=1 --> Googolplex

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
I tried to punch it into Calculator; it said, and I quote: "Invalid input for function"

You can't punch it into a calculator unless the calculator understands up-arrow notation (which I myself don't understand).

The way you described it is 10^(10^80) - 10^80 has 10^80 zeroes, no? (10^1 = 10 = 1 zero, 10^2 = 100 = 2 zeroes... 10^80 -> 80 zeroes)

I see no problem other than it is just a huge number. What's this "up-arrow notation?"

No, 10^80 has 80 zeroes.

??? That's what I said...

Sorry. I misread what you wrote. But Graham's number is not 10^(10^80), which is just 10 raised to a number that has 80 zeroes; it's 10 raised to a number that has 10^80 zeroes.

 

[DrPizza]

The majority of people can't fathom numbers above a billion. A few people can comprehend numbers in the trillions and a little beyond. I don't think anyone can comprehend a number as large as Graham's number.

Hint: if you're going to write out that number, there are more digits in it than there are atoms in the universe. WAY more. And, that comparison is like comparing the Pacific Ocean to a drop of water. Well, that's not even close.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The majority of people can't fathom numbers above a billion. A few people can comprehend numbers in the trillions and a little beyond. I don't think anyone can comprehend a number as large as Graham's number.

Hint: if you're going to write out that number, there are more digits in it than there are atoms in the universe. WAY more. And, that comparison is like comparing the Pacific Ocean to a drop of water. Well, that's not even close.

Whats the point of it though?

Can't you just keep getting larger numbers by taking his number and going +1

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The majority of people can't fathom numbers above a billion. A few people can comprehend numbers in the trillions and a little beyond. I don't think anyone can comprehend a number as large as Graham's number.

Hint: if you're going to write out that number, there are more digits in it than there are atoms in the universe. WAY more. And, that comparison is like comparing the Pacific Ocean to a drop of water. Well, that's not even close.

And some people don't know the difference between million, billion, and trillion. :Q

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Random Variable
It's called Graham's number and it's roughly 10 raised to a number that has 10^80 zeroes. (For reference, a trillion is 10 raised to a number that has one zero, and a googol is 10 raised to a number that has 2 zeroes.) It's an upper bound to the following yet to be solved problem:

Consider an n-dimensional hypercube, and connect each pair of vertices to obtain a complete graph on 2n vertices. Then colour each of the edges of this graph using only the colours red and black. What is the smallest value of n for which every possible such colouring must necessarily contain a single-coloured complete sub-graph with 4 vertices which lie in a plane?

EDIT: And a googolplex is just 10 raised to a number that has 100 zeroes.

Sideways 8?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The majority of people can't fathom numbers above a billion. A few people can comprehend numbers in the trillions and a little beyond. I don't think anyone can comprehend a number as large as Graham's number.

Hint: if you're going to write out that number, there are more digits in it than there are atoms in the universe. WAY more. And, that comparison is like comparing the Pacific Ocean to a drop of water. Well, that's not even close.

Whats the point of it though?

Can't you just keep getting larger numbers by taking his number and going +1

Well, you've nailed infinity down fairly well. Yes, of course you can. Relatively speaking, when compared to all numbers possible, Graham's number is incredibly small, virtually zero.

But, "can't you just keep getting larger numbers by taking his number and going +1"? Well, just how are you going to do that? Is number is so large that you can't write it down, even in scientific notation. The only way possible to write it down is to use some sort of special notation. (Knuth's up-arrow notation is one popular way of writing down fantastically large numbers.) However, that notation leaves enormous gaps where you have no way of writing down the numbers in the middle.

Imagine for a moment that you could only express numbers in scientific notation using 3 digits in the front. How would you write down a number between 1.11x10^100 and 1.12x10^100? There are .01x10^100 or 10^98 numbers between them. Well, of course, you can start using addition with a bunch of numbers written in scientific notation being added together. It's going to take a bit or writing though, but you can get any individual number between those two numbers written down on a few lines of a single page. However, once you get to numbers the size of Graham's number; the methods for writing those numbers down result in numbers so far apart that there isn't enough ink in the world to write down the numbers between them.

Oh, and in case no one mentioned it, Graham's number is actually useful. Well, sort of useful: here.

 

[Saint Michael]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
The majority of people can't fathom numbers above a billion. A few people can comprehend numbers in the trillions and a little beyond. I don't think anyone can comprehend a number as large as Graham's number.

Hint: if you're going to write out that number, there are more digits in it than there are atoms in the universe. WAY more. And, that comparison is like comparing the Pacific Ocean to a drop of water. Well, that's not even close.

What do you mean by "fathom"? Do you mean actually picturing a trillion dancing hamsters in your head? Who the hell can't understand what a trillion is?

 

[hdeck]

so...what's the point of this number, and what did he do to claim it for himself?

 

[olds]

oldsmoboat's number = Graham's number + 1

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Googolplexplex is larger.

10^10^100^100 is much, much smaller.

That's just 10 raised to a number that has 10,000 zeroes.

Uh, no. Googolplexplex is 10^10^10^100
In other words, 10 raised to a number that has 10^100 zeroes.
The way you've defined Graham's number could also be written as ~10^10^10^80, which is much smaller.

 

[Random Variable]

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Googolplexplex is larger.

10^10^100^100 is much, much smaller.

That's just 10 raised to a number that has 10,000 zeroes.

Uh, no. Googolplexplex is 10^10^10^100
In other words, 10 raised to a number that has 10^100 zeroes.
The way you've defined Graham's number could also be written as ~10^10^10^80, which is much smaller.

Yeah, something's wrong. I think my rough definition is erroneous.

 

[JujuFish]

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: Random Variable

Originally posted by: JujuFish
Googolplexplex is larger.

10^10^100^100 is much, much smaller.

That's just 10 raised to a number that has 10,000 zeroes.

Uh, no. Googolplexplex is 10^10^10^100
In other words, 10 raised to a number that has 10^100 zeroes.
The way you've defined Graham's number could also be written as ~10^10^10^80, which is much smaller.

Yeah, something's wrong. I think my rough definition is erroneous.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's it, because googolplexplex is definitely not even remotely close to the actual number.