[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.27 MB, 1920x1080, Canyon River.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4860492 No.4860492 [Reply] [Original]

Represent the largest number you can in 10 characters.

>> No.4860500

googol^999

>> No.4860501

10000000^∞

>> No.4860507

BB(BB(G!))

/thread

>> No.4860505

infinity+1

>> No.4860510

9^9^9^9^99

>> No.4860511

>>4860505
infinity^9
you mad, mathfags

>> No.4860515

Yargel*

*Note: Yargel is a word I just made up which means the largest number mentioned in this thread,other than Yargel, plus one.

>> No.4860516

>>4860511
infinity/0

>> No.4860524

>>4860516
infinity/ 0 = infinity*(1/0) = infinity*infinity = infinity^2 < infinity^9

>> No.4860529
File: 53 KB, 400x400, 10char.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4860529

>> No.4860532

a zillion

>> No.4860533

>>4860516
also ∞∞∞∞^∞∞∞∞∞

>> No.4860535

ITT: infinity is a number, apparently

>> No.4860536

∞↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ ∞

>> No.4860540

Serious one here:

<span class="math">\prod_{2}^{BB(G^{G})}r^{r}[/spoiler]

Not sure how this compares to the other BB one.

>> No.4860539

999999999!

>> No.4860547

googolplex

>> No.4860541

>>4860532
win

>> No.4860545

>>4860540
Ignore the fact I can't use LaTeX.

>> No.4860551

everything

>> No.4860552
File: 52 KB, 1352x2408, Big One.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4860552

>> No.4860558

Goddamnit infinity is not a number, not to mention there are different magnitudes of infinity.

Please, if you typed anything with a infinity, kill yourself.

>> No.4860575

>>4860558
How do you define number? I would agree that infinity is not a real number. But not a number at all?

>> No.4860579

>>4860575

Not a number at all.

>> No.4860585

>>4860579
According to what definition?

>> No.4860586

>>4860558
It's a transfinite number.

>> No.4860607

graham's #

>> No.4860609

BB^9^9^9(9

>> No.4860618

>>4860586
If we're allowed such numbers, I'm going to say 'Reinhardt'.
So large it's inconsistent.

>> No.4860622
File: 316 KB, 496x430, mad bus driver.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4860622

>>4860492
>>4860501
>>4860516
>>4860524
>>4860533
>>4860535
>>4860536
>>4860539

Infinity is the highest you can go! It can never be greater!

>> No.4860624

123456789^

>> No.4860630

infinite+1

>10 characters

>> No.4860641

>>4860630
Infinity+2

>> No.4860648

over 9000!

>> No.4860667

NIGGER*SPIC

>> No.4860669

largest+1

>> No.4860679

10^10^100 and that gentlesirs is a googolplex. If we were to fill the universe with sand, we would have a 10^10^70 amount of sand granules.

>> No.4860699

>>4860669

Largest+Z

Base 35

>> No.4860707

100
In base googolplex

>> No.4860709 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9[/spoiler]

what do I win?

>> No.4860714

<span class="math">9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9^{9}}}}}}}}}[/spoiler]

What do I win?

>> No.4860721

>>4860707

That is still 100?

>> No.4860723

9^9999999!

>> No.4860727

>>4860707

So googolplex^googolplex?

>> No.4860728

<span class="math"> G \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow G [/spoiler]
where G is obviously Graham's number.

Do I win?

>> No.4860731

What? People actually trying to answer OP's question instead of going slightly off-topic and talking about the much more interesting Berry paradox?

/sci/, I am disappoint!

>> No.4860734

<span class="math">n^{n^{n^{n^{n^{n^{n^{n^{n^{n}}}}}}}}}[/spoiler]
Where n is any arbitrarily large integer I choose.

Do I beat the faggot who used Graham's number?

>> No.4860732

>>4860728
You win nothing:
<span class="math">G \uparrow^{G \uparrow^{G\uparrow G} G}\uparrow G[/spoiler]

I win.

>> No.4860735

X

where X is the sum of all the numbers mentioned in this thread previously and to come.

>> No.4860739

>>4860734
>Where n is any arbitrarily large integer I choose.
>>4860735
>where X is the sum of all the numbers mentioned in this thread previously and to come.

Did you not understand the "in 10 characters" constraint? Or do you think you represented a number well enough by just writing a towers of n or just X? No you did not. 10 characters, no additional crap.

>> No.4860740

<div class="math"> \frac{1}{y} </div>
where <span class="math"> y \in (0, 1) [/spoiler], and is chosen such that <div class="math"> y < \frac{1}{z} <span class="math">, where z is the largest number in the thread.[/spoiler]</div>

>> No.4860753

infinity to the power of infinity

>> No.4860752

~0-1

I'd be surprised if anyone in this thread can understand why this is a large number just from this rather unclear notation, though. It's not like /sci/ has that many clever people.

>> No.4860757

<span class="math">ℵ_0 ↑↑↑↑↑↑ ℵ_0[/spoiler]

>> No.4860758

>>4860739
>quoting our posts but the faggot(s) who used graham's number
I intentionally posted mine as satire of using variables in this thread, if you don't explicitly state numerals then people can write dumb shit like >>4860735 and win your thread (presumably you're OP).

However, if you do limit it to numerals then I've already won, because I'm also: >>4860714 and that is the largest integer you can create with 10 numerals.

Either way, your thread sucks dick.

>> No.4860760

12.
bitch.

>> No.4860764

>>4860757
>>4860728
Pro tip: for a>2, <span class="math">a\uparrow^aa[/spoiler] is much, much bigger than <span class="math">a\uparrow\uparrow a[/spoiler].

>> No.4860768

<div class="math">\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty}}}}}}}}}</div>

checkmate bitches!

>> No.4860782

grahamplex

>> No.4860783
File: 24 KB, 450x563, cirno proud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4860783

⑨⑨⑨⑨⑨⑨⑨⑨⑨⑨

>> No.4860800

9^99999999

>> No.4860801

>>4860492
busybeav 99

>> No.4860805

> dfw your second grade teacher had you do this with 3 numbers
> dfw you put 9^99
> dfw she says that it's right, but you should only use multiplication not exponents

I was really sad that day.

>> No.4861560

>>4860758
you retarded?

10 characters. "^" is a character, so is "9".OP never said 10 numerals, he said 10 characters.

>> No.4861568

>>4860783
since ⑨ is the strongest number, all other answers are rendered defeated therefore useless.

but you forgot something.
this is stronger than yours:
⑨⑨⑨
⑨⑨⑨
⑨⑨⑨
Because I have an arrangement of ⑨ ⑨'s.

>> No.4861575

>>4860492
a gorillion

>> No.4861581

>>4861568
>>4860783

What's the terminology for these numbers?

>> No.4861588

I'm still certain that nothing in this thread is greater than the Reinhardt cardinals.

>> No.4861593

<span class="math">10^{100^{100^{\infty^\infty}}}[/spoiler]

or i suppose even better

<span class="math">\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty}}}}}}}}}}[/spoiler]

>> No.4861595

>>4861593
sorry

<div class="math">\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty}}}}}}}}}</div>

>> No.4861597

999!^9!^9!

>> No.4861598

>>4861581
It's the Cirno's Constant. Where Strongest is constant.

>>4861593
Just because it is infinite it doesnt mean it is larger, an infinite of zeros is zero, but ⑨*0 is still ⑨.

>> No.4861604

9!!!!!!!!!

>> No.4861600

>>4861581
It's a joke in Touhou

>> No.4861603

Let Z equal the largest number you can represent in 10 characters.
But then, Z+10000000 is a larger number you can represent in 10 characters.
Therefore Z cannot exist, by contradiction.

>> No.4861607

>>4861603
>Let Z equal the largest number you can represent in 10 characters.

You just spent a bunch of characters defining Z.

>> No.4861609

STEP BACK

<div class="math">\sum _{i=-\infty}^{\infty}x^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty^{\infty}}}}}}}</div>

>> No.4861610

>>4861588
why doesnt wikipedia have a page for William Nelson Reinhardt ?

>> No.4861612

>>4861607
I never implied that was the most efficient way to define Z; it's just one way. The other way is with 10 unknown characters.

>> No.4861615

>>4861609
>i under the sigma and x after the sigma

>> No.4861618

>>4861607
sorry, but any representation of ⑨ is weaker than ⑨ itself.

>> No.4861619

to anyone saying infinity: you're fucking stupid and should go back to school.

>> No.4861620

>>4861618
oh and sorry to OP and all Serious posters, it is just that there are so many just4fun posts that I strated doing it.

>> No.4861624 [DELETED] 

<span class="math">\aleph_99999999[\math][/spoiler]

>> No.4861626

>>4861612
That's why I chose 10 characters, so nobody could define something like Z (I hope).

>> No.4861639

>>4860492
your mother

>> No.4861642

>>4861639
OP's mother isnt a number. And you are larger than OP's mother.

>> No.4861649

>implying you can't treat infinity as a variable in equations

>> No.4861668

A (999,999)

(where A is the Ackerman funcion)

>> No.4861670

>>4861668

or trying again if explanation of A isn't allowed, nonstandard but maybe understable

Acker 99,99

>> No.4861738

>>4861668
A(G,G)
A is the Ackermann function, G is Graham's number.
This explanation is allowed, everyone should know what is meant.

>> No.4862442

>>4860758
unless you change your base to be a non 10 base then you could do things like have the keyboard base:
0123456789)!@#$%^&*()~_+QWERTYUIOIP{}ASDFGHJKL:"ZXCVBNM<>?qwertyuiop[]\asdfghjkl;'zxc
vbnm,./
where / = 92

>> No.4862451

>>4860699
more than 10 chars, sorry

>> No.4862457

infinity!!

>> No.4862461

>>4860492
<div class="math">1^99999999</div>

>> No.4862468

googol^9^^9^^^9

>> No.4862477

>>4860758
I'm a bit late with this, but I'm OP, and that wasn't me you responded too.

>> No.4862514

how to get big numbers and symbols

>> No.4862628

<span class="math">FFFF!^{FFFF!}[/spoiler]

>> No.4862735

shhfifty 5

>> No.4862747

my dick

>> No.4862764

A(g64,g64) Using the Ackerman function on grahms number.

Credit: xkcd.com/207

>> No.4862780

mypenisize

>> No.4862789

>>4860492
Grahams No

>> No.4862810

"Largest No."

>> No.4862811

tree-fiddy

>> No.4862815

over 9000!!!

... I'm sorry.

>> No.4862827

9999^9999

KABOOM

>> No.4862839

>>4860515
boosh

>> No.4862850

faglvl(op)

>> No.4862861

9!^9!^999!
Could op say who has the highest number?

>> No.4862940

> all the posts with more than 10 characters

>> No.4862958

9999^∞

>> No.4862960

10

>> No.4862967

So far for real numbers this guy is winning, >>4860732
with an absolutely ludicrous number.

>> No.4862973 [DELETED] 

>>4862861
It would be between:
>>4860732
>>4860540
>>4860507

But probably:
>>4860732

>> No.4862975

>>4862973
Imma delete that and get my links right.

>> No.4862978

>>4862861

It would be between:
>>4860507
>>4860540
>>4860732

But probably:
>>4860507

>> No.4862984

>>4862978
Although, saying that, <span class="math">BB(BB(G^{G}))[/spoiler] would better better.

>> No.4862985

>>4860721
oh wow.

7/10 if troll

>> No.4863002

TREE(9999)

This number, since TREE(3) is unimaginably larger than virtually every other named number, is pretty fucking big. Like, really really big.

>> No.4863032

Grahams#^∞

>> No.4863137
File: 827 B, 116x42, hyperoperations.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863137

>>4860732
This can be improved using subscript notation without parentheses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper_operation#Notations

Can't into Latex, so here's a screenshot of what I'm thinking of.

G is Graham's number.
The following 9 characters are the exponent of the first G.
The 4 pairs of horizontally matching G's have a hyper-operation with hyper-number of the value in between the two.
The 6th G stands alone.

>> No.4863157

http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/b/big.htm

If you count Moser's polygon notation, there's no upper limit. You can draw as many sides as you want.

>> No.4863640

>>4863157
Let's put an upper bound on the number of sides, like the maximum number of sides that can be drawn for a polygon on a 1920x1080 screen so that they can still be counted easily. And then I think that >>4863137 wins.

>> No.4863649

>>4863137
What a pathetically low number.

<span class="math">B(B(B(G)))[/spoiler]
G is grahams number, B is the busy beaver function

>> No.4863658

>>4860757
WHY IS THERE A LAMED THERE

>> No.4863663
File: 30 KB, 600x400, 0930-herman-cain-999_full_600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4863663

Someone say my name?
>also, infinity is not a number you dumb fucks

>> No.4863661

>>4861612
this is legit

>> No.4863665

>>4863658
It's an Aleph. Set theory uses a bunch of hebrew letters.

>> No.4863687

>>4863649
Not sure exactly how fast B grows, but assuming it's better than the G's with the left exp notation, then this is even greater:
<span class="math">B^{B(G^G)}(G)[/spoiler]

>> No.4863698

>>4863687
Hmm, only 9 characters. Allow me to change that:
<span class="math">B^{B^{G^G}(G)}(G)[/spoiler]
(where B^1=B and for i>1, B^{i}=B^{i-1}∘B)