/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7228461
x+1

Graham's number ^ Graham's number

-1/12

>>7228461
let DICKS be the greatest real number

note that any arithmetic operations on DICKS is undefined

maximum(thread) + 1

>>7228473
>let DICKS be the greatest real number
not well defined.
>>7228468
Graham's number ^ Graham's number^the size (in inches) of your mother's dildo * the size of my dick.

>>7228476
>maximum(thread) + 1
That causes an endless loop with result infinity.
=> you're out.

(all the numbers in this thread)2+(all the numbers in this thread)2

>>7228484
...COCK

max(thread\comment) + 1

>>7228479
> the size of my dick.
any number multiplied by an infintessimal is an infintessimal

>>7228486
-infinity

haha

>>7228486
see >>7228484
Better:
x = max{y+1| y is in this thread and y is not in this post}

>>7228494
>-infinity
Congratiulation, you found the worst possible answer.

>>7228504
I meant to ruin >>7228486's post. I didn't realize it was squared. Hold on, new number.

i∞

There must be a greatest number.

>>7228461
1 in base infinity

>>7228510
>i∞
Does this even make sense?
When yes:
Wouldn't it be irrational?
Wouldn't it has abs=1?

>>7228527
it's imaginary infinity. my bad if you thought i was raised to the infinity.

>>7228538
I see, my fault.

>>7228461
(9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9)^2

>>7228523
You mean 10 in base infinity?

Let A be the Ackermann function. Define J(n) to be A(A(A(...A(n,n)...)),A(...A(n,n)...)). For example,

J(1) = A(1,1) = 3
J(2) = A(A(2,2),A(2,2)) = A(7,7) = (2 ^[5] 10)-3
J(3) = A(A(A(3,3),A(3,3)),A(A(3,3),A(3,3)))

Where ^[x] denotes Knuth's up-arrow notation.

This function is already far larger than Graham's number at J(5), and I choose my value to be J^G(G), for G Graham's number.

Looks like I'm winning by an obscene number of orders of magnitude.

>>7228934
This guy + 1

J^[>>7228948](>>7228948)

>>7228934
TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(3))))

>>7228956
This guy + 2

BH^[>>7228963](TREE^[BH(>>7228956)])

>>7228934
>>7228962
I have no experience in actually analyzing these kind of numbers, which of these would be larger? Are they even close?

>>7228978
I am inclined to say that >>7228962 beat me out. TREE is an insanely fast-growing function.

>>7228973
this guy + 3

>>7229005
(Joke's on you, I only described a function in my post, not a number.)

BB(BB(BB(BB(10))))
Wins against anything not using the busy beaver function

>>7229090
False. Just because it is the fastest-growing computable function doesn't make it the fastest-growing function out there. For example, FOST(G)>>BB^4(G), for G Graham's number. FOST(n) gives the supremum of the set of all values named by expressions in first-order set theory using at most n symbols, and for relatively small values (around 100 or so), FOST exceeds any computable function (including busy beaver).

Your mother's weight in solar masses.

>>7229104
Do you mean uncomputable?

>>7229104
>busy beaver
>computable function
heh

>FOST(G)>>BB^4(G)
Where does this come from?

>>7229114
As hilarious as that is, even using an obscenely small unit like a Planck mass would yield a number far smaller than many (most) of the contenders in this thread, for any astronomical body you can name.

>>7229117
>>7229128
Herp derp, yes, sorry. Typo.

>>7229128
It comes from the fact that in the hierarchy of fast-growing functions, FOST is significantly faster than BB, and the order of magnitude of the crossing points of their graphs is FAR less than G.

x = ∞ - 1

I win

>>7229172
This nigga

>>7229172
>>7229189
Please be bait... Infinity minus one is not a real number, because infinity is not a real number and is not subject to the field operations on the reals. OP required the number be real.

>>7229194
>actually writing out a response

lel

7

Carnality of the naturals.

>>7228468
Hot shit eh anon! But dig this. That means you too >>7228479

(Graham's number ^ Grahams's number)!

>>7229258
...Is not a real number.

1 / (1 - 0.99999...)

>>7228461
number of possible arrangements of atoms in the universe

<span class="math"> \aleph _2[/spoiler]

There, suck it bastards.

>>7229273
That's honestly probably less than this guy's answer
>>7228973

>>7229276
<span class="math">\aleph _2 + 1[/spoiler]

>>7229273
That's actually less than (10^10^100)!, if we naively assume classical mechanics, and assume you are referring to the observable universe. It's a huge number, no doubt, but it's far, far, far smaller than >>7228934, >>7228956, >>7228962, >>7229090, and >>7229104.

10 in base infinity. gg fags.

(1/infinity)^-1

>>7228897
>>7228523
You're both wrong, he means infinity in base 1.

>>7228934
>Looks like I'm winning by an obscene number of orders of magnitude.

RIght, except my number is J(J^G(G))

Squaring is for fags
The factorial of Graham's number

>>7228934
>>7228962
>TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(Graham's Number)

The integral from 0 to Graham's number ^ Graham's number of Graham's number ^ Graham's number * x ^ Graham's number ^ Graham's number * dx

(Grahams number)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>7228461
I reject your nines and substitute tens.

(Number of times I cumed in the sock under my desk)^(number of times I pissed in a bottle)

The inverse of how many times OP has gotten laid. Alternatively, the amount of dicks he sucked.

>>7229631
Holy shit, I can't even comprehend this number.
Mind = Blown

1337

check these!

>>7229587
stop screaming

>>7228461
let x be he 2nd greatest number in that thread (before it gets archived)
m = x+1 is my my number

The highest number in this thread + 1x10^-100
GG fags

>>7229679
If OP sucks dicks then he's getting laid.

>>7229587
>>7228468
What's bigger guys?
Just wondering

>>7228461
The largest finite number that can be expressed in the language of set theory in a googol characters or less.

>>7229927
The factorial one.

>>7229927
From what I remember of babby math, the factorials win, because there's more than one of them.

log(G^G) = G log G
log(G!) ~ G [ log(G) - 1] (Stirling's approximation)
log([G!]!) ~ G! [log (G!) - 1] > G log G

>>7229930
I beat you out here: >>7229104 when I gave FOST of Graham's number.

Graham's number^^^^^^^Grahm's number

Hypertetration!

>>7229104
>FOST

Well, I guess this wins then.

>>7228461
take an arbitrarily large number

A(G,G,G), the Grahamth super operation using the Ackerman function of Grahams to Grahmans number.

The number of nigger cocks your mom eats a day ^ the number of cocks you can shove up your ass.

>>7230113
Arbitary? And which probability measure do you use?

>>7230159
arbitrarily large, not arbitrary large

>>7230129
Ackermann is computable, so your number has already lost to busy beaver, FOST, and the other noncomputable functions in this thread.

I think that after this thread I will start one where we challenge each other to describe the fastest-growing function they can in the space of a single post.

>>7228934
Your definition of J is lacking precision. Try I(n,m) = A(I(n,m-1),I(n,m-1)) and I(n,1) =A(n,n).

>>7229587
Let m = this number
Let D(k) be defined as 2↑(D(k-1))n,
D(1) = 2↑(m)n
The biggest number is D(m)

I win

Aleph-null

Bigger than any finite number, but not absolutely infinite.

>>7229904
I know. I didn't feel like using TeX to put brackets in and explicitly show that the stack is n layers deep, so I figured I would just construct the first few values so it would be obvious.

>>7230346

e p i c

>>7229014
>implying you can't add a constant to a function

>>7229679
he already said infinity wasn't allowed

every number in this thread right now = x

x^x +1 is my number

>>7230683
Your number + 1

>>7230685
fuuuuuuuuuuuck

>>7230683
I don't know if you read the thread, but negative infinity is one of the numbers in the thread. So your number would evaluate to 1.

>>7230685
= 2

>>7230691
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK

-1/12

9

>>7230710
8

3.14152265358979323846264338

>>7230546
>implying it constitutes a valid submission to the thread

>>7228479
so 0?

>>7230698
INFINITY IS NOT ALLOWED!

>>7230961
Why 0? Ahh I understand, because the size of your mother's dildo is -infinity just like your daddy's dick.

>>7228471
what part of not including infinity didn't you get?

>>7228461
<span class="math"> \sup(\mathbb{R}) [/spoiler]

>>7230995
That's defind and it's infinity.
You may mean max(IR) ?

x=sum_k=1^n k
where n is the second largest number posted in this thread

also I'd like to submit y which is x+1

>>7230691
>infinity
>number

>>7230966
great insult, fagtron

Let x be all finite numbers in this thread.

x^x

>>7231775
(Your number)^2
Which makes us both loop, and so we loose

>>7231778
>we loose
How does that make you loose? If anything it makes you tight.
>>7231775
How are you taking a set to it's own power?

>>7228511
Please be kidding

The highest number mentioned here+1

>>7231866

this number * 2.8

>>7231874
So which one would be higher? Or would they slowly escalate towards infinity?

My number is the sum of all numbers before this post plus one.

>>7229114
OP said no infinite numbers you dip shit

The sum of all positive real numbers mentioned in this thread, whose definition does not contain references to any other post.

a = sum of all numbers in this thread

<span class="math">\infty-\varepsilon[/spoiler]

>>7232002
Or alternatively:

M = The sum of all finite positive real numbers mentioned in this thread.

Since thread size and number of characters are finite, M will be finite as a finite sum of finite reals.

Not sure what would happen if someone tries to one-up this number, though.

999!

I win

>>7232031
Not well defined:
>Since thread size and number of characters are finite, M will be finite as a finite sum of finite reals.
By definiton of M, you sum over M too, so
M>M, contradiction.

>>7232002
There still can be numbers in this thread bigger than yours, namely the numbers which definiton contain references of other posts.

>>7232025
infinity isn't a number m8

infinity - 1
:^)

>>7231849
Indexed families of elements of that set indexed by elements of that same set.

>>7228484
you mean results in -1/12

<span class="math">x[/spoiler]
where <span class="math">x[/spoiler] is a finite number larger by some finite number <span class="math"> \varepsilon [/spoiler] than any finite number hitherto and after mentioned in this thread.

The extended reals includes infinity.
I'll take the power set of the reals. Just to be safe.

>>7232122
So x>x+epsilon?

the size of my dick in lightyears

>>7231892
Well played, well played

next question

check this 4

>>7229272
mhhh

>>7232254

>>7228468
The sum of all the elements contained in the universal set

>>7228461
x = Graham's number!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

y = (x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x^x)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
z = y

the rest is in code for simplicities sake, assuming y, i and z are datatypes capable of holding these numbers

for (i = 0; i < z; i += exp(-z))
{
y = factorial(pow(y,y));
}

System.out.println(y);

10 lmao

>>7228461
999 octillionx999 octillion cubed.

>>7232420
G=Graham's method of calculation Graham's number(G(64) is grahams number)

G(G(G(64)))


I just recked you you fucking try hard

>>7232467
H = the number in the post I am replying to
X = H+1
get_rect()

>>7228461

...999.999...

>>7228511
Find and prove it. It's so easy to get a Nobel prize anon.

>>7228493
What about infinity? \:^)

>>7233235
>infinity MINUS ONE.

toes easy.

>>7232513
This guy + 4
I will not be stopped

>>7233502
This divided by 0^-2

>>7228461
The product of every real, positive number in this thread, both above and below my post.

>>7233517
>The product of every real, positive number in this thread, both above and below my post.

This +1, including the above including this total total in the total recurring.

>>7233517
>>7233524
the product of every number below 1 :^)

>>7233517
This number to the power of the sum of all primes

>>7228467
lmao'd. You win, mate,

9↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑9

>>7233648
this is the largest number I could post using only operators and constants

>>7233651
let ^ = ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑

9^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^9

fuck off pleb

>>7233564
The product of every real, positive number in this thread, both above and below my post excluding values that are less than 1.

>>7233663
>using symbols
>not getting it

69

The result of every valid post before and after mine +1
rekt

>>7233707
define valid, noob.

Let x be the sum of all valid numbers posted in the thread up to now and until it 404's, where "valid" means a positive real number

y = x+1

I win because you can't just say "my number is y+1" since that would lead to infinite recursion and therefore infinity, and I specified that x has to be a positive real number

sorry for the shitty syntax I don't do math in english

>>7234077
Congratulation, you discovered an undecidable problem.

So, I choose you y+1

Let <span class="math">U_0[/spoiler] be the set of all finite positive real numbers mentioned in this thread whose definition does not contain references to any other number from another post.
For any sucessor ordinal n, let <span class="math">U_n[/spoiler] be the set of all finite positive real numbers mentioned in this thread whose definition contains at least one reference to a number in <span class="math">U_{n-1}[/spoiler], and no references to any other numbers in <span class="math">U_k[/spoiler] for <span class="math">k>n[/spoiler]. Additionally, if <span class="math">n > \omega[/spoiler] (the first uncountable ordinal) then <span class="math">\infty \in U_n[/spoiler], otherwise not.
Lastly for any limit ordinal, I define <span class="math">U_\lambda[/spoiler] to contain a single number: <span class="math">\sup_{n < \lambda} U_n[/spoiler].

My number is the single element of <span class="math">U_\omega[/spoiler]. Anyone who tries to do "this number + 1" shenanigans will find their number pushed into the set <span class="math">U_{\omega + 1}[/spoiler], and hence be disqualified due to the presence of <span class="math">\infty[/spoiler].

>>7234177
I choose y=U_w +1.
It's true that y is in U_(w+1), but that doesn't mean that y is infinity. It's true that U_(w+1) is infinity but not y=(U_w)+1, when I correctly understand your construction.

1/0
no infinities used

>>7234501
Could also be negativ and so very small.

>>7232467
>G=Graham's method of calculation Graham's number(G(64) is grahams number)
You mean G^64(4)

Come on guys... these threads would be so cool if any of you actually tried, instead of fumbling around with infinity jokes, or referencing other posts.

Here, let me give this a shot:

Let |G| denote the number of vertices in a graph G. We will define a function C as such: C(n,1) is the (simple) complete graph on n vertices, and C(n,k) takes the graph C(n,k-1), and for every vertex v, glues one copy of each unique spanning tree rooted at v to v, and then makes this new graph complete by adding in the missing edges. We will then define my super-cool function as C'(n) := |C^|C(n,n)|(n,n)|. My number is C'(G), for G Graham's number.

>>7228461
Can we use recursion?
f(x) = x^2 + f(x+1)
I mean, technically, it doesn't include infinity until you try to evaluate it.

>>7234613
This guy + 1

>>7234618
Points in function types cannot in addition be points in the codomain of the function type. Even by giving constructors for your type, you haven't actually defined a real number.

>>7228461

lets define some functions

f_1_1(a,b) = f( a+b, b-1) if (b>1) else a
f_1_2(a,b) = f( a*b, b-1) if (b>1) else a
f_1_3(a,b) = f( a^b, b-1) if (b>1) else a
... f_1_4 tetrates, etc.

f_2_1(a,b) = f_2_1( a, f_1_1(a,b)) if b>1 else a
f_2_2(a,b) = f_2_1( a, f_1_2(a,b)) if b>1 else a
...

f_N_M(a,b) = f_N_M( a, f_N_(M-1)(a,b)) if b>1 else a


my number if f_G_G(G,G) with G=Graham number

this is basically the ackermann function with two more recursion levels

im pretty sure even f_9_9(9,9) is already bigger than any number in this thread

>>7234732
It's computable, and someone already gave the busy beaver function and another guy gave FOST, which is even faster-growing. FOST(G) is bigger than f_G_G(G,G).

infinity times infinity

my dick

Volume of observable universe in planck volumes.

>>7234821
Much smaller than Graham's number
>>7234811
Try: your moms ass

>>7233707
this guy +5
in non-recursive form, of course

>>7228461
, an unimaginable real number that is greater than any number imaginable.

My number is 14,5.
I also define a new order "<<=" on IR:

For x,y != 14,5 let
x<<=y iff x<=y.
Also
14,5<<=x => x=14,5

/thread

biggest number in this thread + (1-0.999...)

>>7234852
Your number + 2!

>>7234848
I imagined it
What now

>>7234870
Stop shouting.

>>7234870
I hope thats a joke.
16,5<<=14,5
>>7234852
*14,5 <=> x=14,5

>>7229587
Is this guy angry or what.

>>7234852
That new order you pulled out of your arse has nothing to do with this topic.

Let y be the biggest number said in this thread so far.

y+1.

>>7234891
>so far.

In that case my number is y+1

>>7233517
Well my number is 0 :^)

>>7234878
It is greater than that

>>7234901
Well played.

>>7234890
May I tell you what I pulled out of your mother's arse.

>>7234890
I think it was some poor attempt at redefining how we are using the term, "largest number."

>>7234901
>>7234904
Zero is not positive, it is non-negative. It's the unique real that is non-positive and non-negative, because it's its own additive inverse.

>>7234910
You can define 'positive' and 'negative' in a way that zero is both.

>>7234918
No shit. You can define a "metric" in a way that makes all metrics trivial, or "field" in a way that makes R the unique field up to isomorphism. But if someone is going to use terms and not define them, namely >>7233517, then they must accept that we will interpret those terms in the standard accepted way, and by the standard definition of "positive", we refer to a real number strictly greater than zero.

>>7232536
>nobel prize
>mathematics

>>7228461
>number
>singular
>anything higher than 9 is made up of multiple numbers
9 is the answer

>>7228468
>>7229266

(Graham's number ^ Graham's number)! + 1

>>7228461
The number e is an important mathematical constant that is the base of the natural logarithm. It is approximately equal to 2.71828,[1] and is the limit of (1 + 1/n)n as n approaches infinity, an expression that arises in the study of compound interest. It can also be calculated as the sum of the infinite series.

e is a great number. imo it is more great than any of your boring, CS major numbers

>>7235157
prime?

>>7235438
<span class="math">/pi,[/spoiler] I choose you.

62

The number of friks I don't give

>>7228471
this

>>7228461
>9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9
What the actual fuck

>>7235740
shitposter's constant

>>7235740
Why do you google such a thing?

>>7235748
>>7235753
Sorry im new to the board and Im not really experienced with maths and science so I didnt know if OPs number was a significant number that had a reason to be remembered like Pi or e, so I googled it to see if anything relevant came up and this is what I found

>>7235753
>google 9*9
>get 81
>google 9^9^2
>get 1.9662705 × 10^77
>google 9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9
>they pussy out

>>7235761
> I didnt know if 9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9 was a significant number that had a reason to be remembered like Pi or e
Just delicious

>>7228511
>>7228888
>>7229000
>>7229266
>>7229288
>>7229422
>>7230111
>>7230177
>>7230300
>>7230566
>>7230688
>>7230833
>>7230966
>>7231866
>>7232122
>>7233499
>>7233711
>>7234077
>>7234177
>>7234811
These are the only digits that matter.

Someone explain the FOST function to me

>>7235938
Okay, you know how you can use set theory to define natural numbers (because the topos Set has a natural numbers object, but we won't get into that)? For example, say you have the set {a,b,c}. Then you can say, |{a,b,c}|=3. We used five symbols (I'm not including "=3"). Well, the FOST function takes a natural number n, and returns the SMALLEST natural number that can not be described by any combination of symbols from the language of first-order set theory with length less than or equal to n. The largest number to ever be described in a big number competition is called Rayo's number, and the number is FOST(10^100). The idea is that you can use a small number of symbols to define fast-growing functions, and then compose these functions however you like, and use a relatively small input value (say, |{1,2,3}|) an watch the function explode, and have only used maybe fifty symbols. The function is uncomputable, and grows faster than other fast-growing functions, including the busy beaver function and TREE.

ƒω3(3)

>>7228479
so 1?

(((gramas number!^gramasnumber!^gramasnumber^!)^gramasnumbre!)^e^gramsna number!)+1

you literally cannot beat me

>>7228468
Yourmom's number + Yourmom's number

Ξ(10^6)
rekt

>>7236544
+
>>7236575

+1

>>7236081
Ξ is even faster than rayo

>>7236544

>gramas number

... I don't even.

If you are going to toss around words you do not understand, at least finish by saying you don't understand yourself what you just wrote.

>>7236586
gramas number = mass of all grammas on the universe dude

<span class="math"> \sum_{x is a number in this thread} |x|[/spoiler]

suck my dick fags, victory is mine

>>7236614
+1

>>7236614
i
your number is no longer real and thus does not satisfy conditions in the OP

>>7236624
noob, I said |x| which equals 1 in that case

>>7236621
doesn't work, I sum your "+1" too and we're even, but I posted it first so rekt

1+(the sum of all the other numbers posted on this thread)

>>7236672
> I posted it first so rekt
See
>>7228476
>>7228486
>>7228492
>>7228499
>>7229743
>>7230683
>>7231242
>>7232006
>>7232002
>>7232031
>>7232122
>>7233517
>>7234077
>>7234177

>>7236580
That proof was shown to be flawed, because he misinterpreted it as being the language of FO, not FOST (which is in fact more expressive than SO).

>>7232536
>Find and prove it.

Let X be the amount of numbers in R.

R is Aleph 1. By definition there is no type of infinity between Aleph 0 and 1.

Conclusion: X is the biggest number.

(every number in this thread multiplied and cubed) x (every positive number in existence)^9 x (the original answer to the first two brackets)

>>7236849
>R is Aleph 1
>By definition there is no type of infinity between Aleph 0 and 1

>>7230991
But -1/12 is finite m8

>biggest number
>from set in which there's infinite number of numbers greater than any number

>>7236980
Yeah, that's what makes the problem interesting. But for "special people" like you, I have an extra problem:

A1: Find the biggest number in {1}

>>7236988
That'd be 100 I suppose

>>7236980

The problem is more "what's the biggest number that can be represented within the character limit of a post on /sci/?"

>>7236823
Can someone please explain FOST or spell it out? I tried looking it up to no avail

>>7237651
see
>>7235938

1 ÷ length of op's dick

>>7228461
y=9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^9!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>7236823
Why was it flawed?

>>7233684
This guy gets it. So meta

100000000000000000 gazillion millions

>>7237667
+ n, where n is the sum of every other post in this thread taken to the exponent of itself n times

The smallest number greater than any number definable with any formula in first order set theory using 10^100 symbols or less.

>biggest number in this thread by far aside from you fags referencing other posts in your definitions (and the fags who will probably copy/modify this)

>all the well-defined numbers hitherto mentioned are easily defined with a couple dozen symbols in set theory

>>7237732
-(the sum of every post in this thread besides this one and mine)

>now your number is puny

>>7237767
now divide 1 by that number to the exponent 1 divided of Integral of that number with bounds of 0 to one million

>>7237756
This guy gets it.

>>7237756
you fucked up when you fixed your length to 10^100, might as well use only 1 symbol, faggot

>>7237781
Best you can do with 1 symbol is the number 9.

>>7229587
reminds me that i thought of something clever the other day

1=0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

see? it looks like im screaming that 1 = 0, but actually it's a true equality

Let x equal the largest number ever mentioned anywhere and anytime.

x + 1

Also this number is baby Jesus protected so that it will not be thrown to any type of loop and no one may use my number for anything.

>>7237794
I can't even...

>>7237796
I'm not sure if baby Jesus is well defined.

The largest describable number.

I win.

>>7237810
No such thing (the set of describable numbers is unbounded).

Pretty sure >>7237756 still takes the cake

>>7237756
I choose your number + 1.
Because I used your post in my definition which is no part of the first order set theory, my number can be bigger than your number although I used less than 10^100 symbols.

>>7228468
> Graham's number ^ Graham's number
>>7229422
> The factorial of Graham's number
>>7229564
> The integral from 0 to Graham's number ^ Graham's number of Graham's number ^ Graham's number * x ^ Graham's number ^ Graham's number * dx
>>7229587
> (Grahams number)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>7230108
> Graham's number^^^^^^^Grahm's number
>>7232420
> (more graham's number with exponents)

You idiots realize graham's number eats exponents for breakfast? If you iterate Graham's number to one more level from G(64) to G(65), then G(65) is bigger than all of these. It's like you guys aren't even trying.

>>7237841

1^Grahams number

>>7237841
Graham's number*2

>>7237699
I just said in the post you replied to: the guy thought the language Rayo defined was first-order logic in the the form of set theory, but it was in fact first-order set theory, which is expressive enough to model second-order logic and then some. He misinterpreted the definition of FOST.

x^|x|

>Grahams number, also known as "the number nobody would know about if not for xkcd"

>>7236880
>implying Axiom of Choice is false

>>7237756
>first order
Pleb

Let d be a number in the set of the muhdik numbers, the union of the reals and d. For any muhdik number a, d > a.

I pick d.

<span class="math">"the number nobody would know about if not for xkcd"^2[/spoiler]

x > y <=> y > x
n = x

>>7237884
This seems wrong. He completely misinterpreted FOST?

>>7229276
For real though would aleph win?

>>7237935
>Axiom of Choice

>>7228461
yourmom's weight mutiplied by the size of my dick

>>7238101
Remember that one time i fucked ur mom and then pissed down her throat?

1597463007

damn if yall aren't careful you'll accidentally a number too big for mankind
some numbers were not meant to exist

>>7237937
See >>7237884, >>7236823, pleb.

>>7237973
Yep. It's not like Rayo gave a definition in a published paper; the defined his language and number at a competition.

>>7237966
Your definition is not a real-valued function, and you're forgetting that the sentence "x=y" solved the system.

>>7237838
Doesn't change the fact that you're a fagot referencing other posts

>>7237792
>>7237792
>Best you can do with 1 symbol is the number 9.

no, you have nothing with one symbol

the least number is
0 defined as the empty set {}

so two symbols

the number of stolen bikes in black science man's garage / 2

FOST applied to the smallest number which can possibly be described in a non-self referential 4chan post.

>>7237756
just got blown the fuck out.

FOST applied to the largest number which can possibly be described in a 4chan post that does not reference other 4chan posts.

>>7237756
just got blown the fuck out.

>>7237792
which is just as small as fixing your number to an explicit constant. the point really flew across your head didn't it

>>7238723
Your answer does not evaluate to a real number, though. Because your post does not actually reference any posts, you form a strange loop.

Let X be the largest real number describable by a 4chan post that does not reference another 4chan post. Then, your number is FOST(X). However, it is known that X<FOST(X) for any X greater than, say, ten. However, because your post does not reference another 4chan post, the relation must satisfy that X=FOST(X), so we have a contradiction.

Ergo, X is not a real number.∎

>>7238564
You lost, your number is just like 800 or so.

>>7237665
that'd be infinity

>>7238861

x = amount of fools in this world¨
42x^x

the largest number mentioned in this thread,

plus one

>>7240402
Well I choose the largest number mentioned in this thread plus one!

The sum of all numbers before and after this post plus 3

>>7240750
what you said +1

>>7228461
The number of dicks OP is guzzling right now

>>7228962
TREE-->TREE-->TREE-->TREE
In Conway's chain arrow notation

The number of operations it takes to solve the Ackermann's function, it's arguments both being the biggest integer you can input.

The sum total of all numbers and values said and that will be said in this thread + π

>>7241478
hey, we all know that can't be expressed with a real number.

>>7242110
(∞, 3i) is what you're looking for

>>7242110
so OP is guzzling on an x times i amount of dicks?

>>7235851
Kek

>>7228461
n = lim(x->infinity) 2^x

I didn't include infinity because it's the limit as x approaches it.

What do I win?

>>7229587
no need to yell

>>7230286
honestly i think threads like these need some kind of boundaries, or else it's just not as fun

like, define a novel function that has more than three separate operations but less than ten, and is not an obvious derivative of an extant large-number function, uses a single-digit number as input, and produces a calculably large number