/sci/ - Science & Math

9!!!!!!!!!


We can do better...

>>10233668
your's + 1

>>10233668
__________

Base 64. Then you can just increase the base infinitely (if you have enough symbols) to form an infinitely large number using 10 symbols.

Googol!

??? Not sure if this is bigger?

>>10233682
Please explain

>>10233689
fucking idiot
FFFFFFFFFF is bigger than 999999999, duh

>>10233668


99

>>10233695
Rip, you can't use Knuth arrows on 4chan

>>10233693
Ah I see

>>10233695
99

>>10233699
to simplify things, the ASCII in your computer is base 256
nobody uses ASCII anymore, we all use unicode, but unicode is stupid and not simple characters like ASCII is so it's cheating

Ack(9),(9)

Fits ten symbols perfectly

Ackerman functions are pretty big

∞

>>10233711
that's not a number, that's a concept

>>10233668
∞
done

>>10233695
>>10233697
This is what I ment

>>10233722
How big is that?

Is it bigger than 9!!!!!!!!!! ?

>>10233727
Easily

>>10233711
tan(π/2)

>>10233727
9 (arrow) 9 is 9^9 which equals 387420489

9 (arrow) (arrow) 9 is 9^9^9^9... 387420489 times
which is a fucking huge number


9 (arrow) (arrow) (arrow) 9 is 9^9^9^9... (9 (arrow) (arrow) 9) times (that fucking huge number)

so 9(arrow)(arrow)(arrow)9 is bassically

>high schoolers posting the infinity symbol
kek

>>10233727
here a better explanation

>>10233668
Like... 89

That's a pretty big number, isn't it?

≈treefiddy

>>10233727
>>10233743
forgot pic

>>10233741
wrong
9(up arrow)9 is 9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9

not 9^9

>>10233748
oh shit you're right
fug

>>10233745
youve got the right idea...

TREE(9!!!)

TOP THAT BRAINLETS

>>10233668
[math]
\hat{\infty }
[/math]

>>10233683
It originally referred to the biggest number you could write before your hand cramped, so I'm with you on that, especially with the factorial. More factorial maybe.

>>10233742
>implying they're not trolling college students
the smug pepes should have given it away.

>>10233754
Oblivion!!
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Oblivion

>>10233697
99

>>10233713
∞-1

>>10233920
Obongo
https://pastebin.com/vfdvMJWK

>>10233968
way to ruin the fun

[math]\alpeh_{\alpeh_{\alpeh_{\alpeh_{\alpeh_{\alpeh_{\alpeh_{\alpeh_{\omega}}}}}}}} [/math]

With my actual knowledge of ordinals and cardinals, taking the nth cardinal number is the fastest growing operation I can think of in only one character.

[math]\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\omega}}}}}}}}} [/math]

>>10234081
99 of thoz

∞ according to the extended reals lmao

TREE(33)

BB(BB(9!))
Where BB is the Busy Beaver function.

>>10233668
[math]\sup \{a \in \mathbb{N}\}[/math]

assuming you mean written on a board and not characters, with parentheses included for clarity,

(1/(1/(F!!!!)))!

>>10234038
REEEEEEEEE
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Naive_extension

>>10234081
aren't those infinities?

>>10233968
>real

trip's url

meant this

see next:

>>/sci/thread/S8956262#p8970771

>>10233674
9! is bigger.

>>10233668
[math]9\uparrow^{9\uparrow^{9\uparrow^{9}9}9}9[/math]

I think that's the largest you can get using Knuth arrows, and so far the largest on the thread. Someone that understands Conway Chained arrows could probably do better. Someone else suggested Ackerman functions, I don't know those, would have to look it up to see how it compares.

>>10234626
BB_{BB(9)}(9)
get big number'd on

>>10234688
[math]BB_{BB(9)}(9)[/math]
let's try that again

>>10233968
Uh sweetie.. take away epsilon and it's bigger. Lol what a dunce!

>>10233668
∞^∞

>>10234496
>it keeps fucking up the link, I'll just put it in the body of the next post

Tree(999!)

>>10233668
123456789

Where I redefine each of those symbols whenever someone claims to have defeated me.

Derrida is my favourite scientist.

>>10233695
>>10233697
lmao

>>10234285
Winner.

>>10234467
Yeah, it's an infinite cardinal number, but you can associate it to an ordinal number (the smallest ordinal number that has this cardinal for instance) so I feel it's still a number, and a big ass one at that.

TREE(TREE(9

>>10234914
That's 11 characters and you didn't close parentheses.

>>1023492i hoped noone would notice :(

>>10234920
>let f(x)=TREE(x)
f(f(f(9)))

>>10233713
it's on the projective number line

>>10233668
[math]\bigcirc\!\bigcirc[/math]

>>10234994
>w

>>10235041
w

>>10235043
>>10235041
>>10234994
>>10234980
>>10234955
>>>/x/21920603

7

>>10233668
42

>>10234285
>>10234694
These are both bigger than all other non-infinities in this thread. People playing with TREEs and Knuth arrows and shit are not playing in the same league.

0 minus 1

It goes backwards where the number infinite ends

10 infinity characters

where G is the grahams function. (ie G(64) = grahams number)

G(G(G(G(G(G(G(G(G(3))))))))))

[math]\prod_{x\in\text{thread}} x[/math]

>>10235280
based and redpilled

>>10235280
Holy fuck, that's perfect

>>10235267
parentheses are symbols

>>10235280
0
BTFO

>>10234955
Now you have 27 characters.

>>10235292
[math]\Sigma_{x\in\text{thread}}x[/math]

>>10235292
[math]\Sigma_{x\in\text{thread}}x[/math]

[math]\sum_{x\in\text{thread}}x[/math]

>>10235292
delet

[eqn]\sum_{x\in\text{thread}}x[/eqn]

x where x is the biggest number that can be made using only ten symbols

>>10235292
ahem
> 1/0

>>10235430
OH SHI-

>>10235392
>x where x is the biggest number that can be made using only ten symbols
that's a lot more than ten symbols anon

>>10235476
no it's one symbol and a definition

>>10235482
ok, then your symbol is x
which is a letter that doesn't mean anything

>>10235487
it means something because i defined it to be the biggest number that can be made using only ten symbols

>>10233682
if the universe truly is based off math, as if it were designed or some sort of simulation, and we don't find any natural base number system embedded in the fabric of reality, does that mean reality uses a base infinity numbering system? does any of the math change when you do that?

I know binary has problems inherent in it called floating point errors. Would base infinity math give different answers than our base 10? and if the universe truly does run on base infinity, does that mean we should switch our numbering systems?

>>10235501
the universe isn't based on math. it's the other way around

How can we compare the size of incomprehensible numbers like oblivion, busy beaver, ackerman, tree, etc

>>10235652
simple, we see which one is closest to the size of my penis

>>10235392
>>10235482
kek

Something something Graham's number G [math]G = g_{64}[/math]
blah blah blah, thicc numbers

[math]g_{g_{g_{g_{g_{g_{g_{g_{9}}}}}}}}[/math]

>>10233754
TREE(knuth up arrow here)TREE

BB(BB(G))

Busybeaver of Busybeaver of Graham's number

>>10235501
A number is The same in any base, Just The representation changes. The error in binary is actually on computers, because they dont have infinite memory

>>10233682
>>10233689
Infinitely large?...
from just base 64.

this is not a literal estimate right?

There is only one:
sum(inf)

>>10235430
i'll do ya one better
xZ/0

>Biggest number you can make only using 10 symbols

Brainlets: [math]999999999[/math]
Computer scientists: [math]0xFFFFFFF[/math]
Physicists: [math]9.99 \times 10 ^{99}[/math]
Statisticians: [math]1[/math]

>>10233668
Someone write a translation of "the sum of all numbers" in Ithkuil with the Ithkuil alphabet.

tree(9!!!)

>>10235280
>>10235292
kek

9E9E9E9E99

x

where x = Biggest number you can make only using 10 symbols

>>10237327
i already said that

>>10233668
BB(9!!!!!)

>>10237628
Im new to LaTeX sorry if broken

[math] 9 /uparrows/ uparrows 9 [\math]

In knuth notation

>>10237628
9^(9^(9^(9^(9^(9^(9^(9^9!)!)!)!)!)!)!)!

>>10235807
No, that was an an example of a rather high number since it uses base 64. What would happen if you instead used base 65? Well then the symbols would represent a number which would be even larger. And then 66, 67, 68 and so on, up until you reach a base which is infinity large, making the 10 symbols represent an infinity large number. You could do the same using just 1 number, don't need any "modular" arithmetic at all.

The constrain is that you need to have a symbol for each number, and the human mind can't really remember much more than 16 symbols for a number system (it's easier to add another zero behind the number). But it's theoretically possible to have a number system which is base infinity.

>>10233674
repeated ! means you skip that many numbers in your factorial
9! = (9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1)
9!! = (9x7x5x3x1)
9!!! = (9x6x3x1)
9!!!! = (9x4x1)
so 9!!!!!!!!! is just 9

Let m be a natural base whereas the largest 1 digit number in base m is always "g". My number is the limit of ggggggggg as m approaches infinity

99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
oh the wonders of ctrl c ctrl v
it actually came out to 6000+ characters at first and I spent more than 10 seconds trimming it down to 2000 now

delete the decimal from 8/9

>>10237957
brainlet

>>10233668
10e+100!!!!

The numbers are right here fellas.

you're moms weight

>>10233711
∞+1

>>10233668
9^999999999

>>10233668
8========D

>>10233668
Tree(999!)

Tree(9!!!)

>>10234688
1, you used more than 10 symbols, and 2, wtf notation are you using anyways, what are you trying to say?

>>10239991
Infinity is not a number you fuxking moron

>>10234694
ok, you cleaned up symbols, and from you're perspective, and the other comment it's likely bigger, but what notation is it?

>>10235280
hahah, funny, but not larger than some of the suggestions already mentioned.

G(G(64!!))

>>10239974
>+40 lbs
your mom's weight with jewelry

>+50 lbs
your mom's weight with jewelry and makeup

>>10233678
Never failed in elementary school

What about googleplex idk how its written

>>10233668
W_op's_mom

>>10241138
G(G(G(9)))

>>10233668
808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000

>>10241124
∞+2

pi

>>10233668
>>10234285
>>10234694
>>10235852
So it seems people have honed in on it. In general the thread has shown the rough ordering classes of making large numbers as follows.

Addition
Multiplication
Factorialization
Tower Functions
Recursively Iterated Tower Functions
Graham, Knuth, Ackerman, Conway Classes
Busy Beaver

That's where it leaves off. According to Googology Wiki there are still 3 classes above Busy Beaver. They are:

Xi Function
Rayo's Number / Function
FOOT and BIGFOOT function.

So, according to that, the largest with 10 symbols would be BIGFOOT(9), but of course someone can always just take the last biggest function concept as a basis for some other labeled function with less symbols, ad infinitum. Link to BIGFOOT is here: http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/BIG_FOOT

>>10242124
Ahem.

>>10235280
>>10235292
[math]\sum_{x \in \text{thread}} x[/math]

'R' is Rayo's Number.

-(BB(R!!))

>>10243709
-∞

>>10243759
Not a number.

>>10243785
a number is whatever you want it to be

>>10243709
everyone make uncountably many posts so this chucklefuck is wrong

>>10243709
[math]-(-\frac{1}{12})[/math]

>>10243812
But muh bump limit...

>>10233668
Wasn't there a symbol for very big number, like '|' or something?
I remember a numberfile video about it.

-1/12

9e9999999

>>10233668
sup S, where S is the set of all numbers that can be expressed as the numerical value of a well-formed formula in ZFC consisting of 10 or fewer symbols

>>10233968
came here to post this

>>10233668
9!!!!!!!!!

>>10244870
I count 151 symbols.

>>10233668
Let § = the greatest number that it's possible to express in all possible universes.

§

>>10246022
§+1

>>10238015
no I thought it said highest number you can type in 10 seconds haha fuck you ffag

>>10246025
§ is by definition greater or equal to §+1

>>10233668
Remove decimal from pi

>>10246022
>Let § = the greatest number that it's possible to express in all possible universes.

This is 84 characters

>>10246048
§=largest#

>>10237957
haha

>>10237929
Yes but that's a notational quirk. It should still count because, however standard it may be, that notation is arbitrary and downright illogical. They oveloaded a perfectly reasonable syntax for repeating the unitary factorial operator, in exchange for something else just because it has more combinatorial use.
If you insist, try this, 10 symbols:

((999!)!)!

Much better than OP's but I bet it's not the best possible. Any attempt to add a factorial would add too many accompanying parentheses to exceed that number.

Sasquatch!

100

>>10235501
The question is, is physics based on integers or is it based on real numbers.

>>10244863
Better yet, 9e(9e999!)

Since 9e999! is obviously much larger than 999999, it's that many more digits than yours.

>>10233668
X^X Where X is equal to the biggest number produced in thread by 10 symbols.

>>10246063
No such thing.

>>10248373
X^X Where X i

there's your character limit

>>10248373
That’s more than 10 letters dumbass.

>>10248376
>>10248379

X^X

Thats 3 char. If you deny my qualifying statement then you must disregard all symbols that are not basic math. To understand a non basic symbol you clearly read more then 10 chars before just to understand the principle functions or representations behind them..

>>10235501
You're so retarded I can't even

g999999999

In other words, Graham's notation taken recursively 999999999 times.

Biggest other number in this thread plus one.
words=symbols

>>10243704
>aleph null
>a number

>>10249195
a number is whatever you want it to be

>>10249260
Your homosexuality must be a massive number then.

>>10233668
9^99999999

>>10248389
That’s why you can only use standard notation that professional mathematicians would acknowledge

>>10249195
It’s a number you dolt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number

>>10235280
>>10235292
>>10243704
>>10243709
>>10243759
[math]2^{\max \text{thread}}[/math]
Guaranteed to be bigger by Cantor’s theorem.

>>10243810
>>10249260
If I say “green” is a number, does that make it so?

>>10249362
obviously, green is bigger than red and smaller than blue, this is self-evident

>>10249350
that's 11 symbols

ω

>>10249424
Well, shit.

>>10235280
>>10235292
>>10243704
>>10243709
>>10243759
>>10249424
>>10250839
Fixed:
[math]2^{\bigvee \text{thread}}[/math]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join_and_meet

>>10250916
[math]2^{2^{2^{\bigvee \text{thread}}}}[/math]

>>10250917
[math]\left(\bigvee \text{thread}\right)![/math]
Is this bigger? And yes, factorials can be extended to transfinite numbers.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2551471/what-is-aleph-0

>>10250919
[math]G\left(\bigvee \text{thread}\right)[/math]
where g's from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number

>>10250924
-(⋁thread)

>>10235821
the fuck

>>10250930
But I'm taking the supremum, so posting a lower number (no matter how low) doesn't affect the result.

Checkmate.

>>10233668
9^999999x9

>>10250924
I'll do you one better.
[math]\aleph_{\aleph_{\aleph_{\vee \text{thread}}}}[/math]

>>10250956
Even better (if the generalized continuum hypothesis fails):
[math]\beth_{\beth_{\beth_{\vee \text{thread}}}}[/math]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_number#Relation_to_the_aleph_numbers

>>10250950
>9^999999x9 = 9^(999999+1)
>not 9^9999999
Idiot.

>>10250943
⋁thread+1

>>10233668
9E99999999

>>10250958
[math]\psi(\vee \text{thread})[/math]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_countable_ordinal#Impredicative_ordinals

9^99999999

>>10233697
>[math]\uparrow[/math]

999
9 9
999
9

>>10233668
infinite

>>10241862
Except in grammar

>>10249417
colors are EM frequencies so they "are" numbers

>>10252286
>doesn’t know basic color theory
Colors are NOT frequencies, idiot. What’s the frequency of white? Or pink? Go read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision#Physiology_of_color_perception before spouting off more nonsense.

>>10242124
Congratiolations, you read Scott Aaronson

>>10244855
-1/12 + 1

>>10233722
>>10233697
>Rip, you can't use Knuth arrows on 4chan
[math]9\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow9[/math]

>>10252945
How?!

>>10253538
It's called TeX you nigglet.

0^-1

>>10242124
Posts like this are why I still come here.

literally any number or symbol