Big numbers don't exist

[Physics_wiz]

Sorry but I don't understand. Why would a number like 10^100000 not exist? because we can't write it on paper? Because we can't make a program that can output that many numbers? Because we don't have any representation for it or we can't comprehend it?

First, if it's because we can't write it on paper think about this:
Can you count all the atoms in the milky way on paper? Does that mean they don't exist?

Second, if it's because we don't have any representation for it or we can't comprehend it think about this:
Do you have a representation for how gravity works? Can you comprehend gravity? Does that mean gravity doesn't exist?

 

[Hurkyl]

Y'all might find the "Busy Beaver Problem" interesting...

 

[Tigron-X]

Well, isn't there really only ten numbers repeated constantly in all directions of dimensions?

And, the idea of finite space doesn't mean infinity does not exist. It only means that a certain relative value will reach a balance of zero within that defined space. Everyone knows that zero is a holding spot until a relative value is assigned.

So, the number 10^100,000 is an object with the value of one that is expressed ten times within geometric planes that only pay attention to one hundred thousand directions of an infinite spectrum. It would take forever to plot each individual point, so logic has fields or dimensions known as matrices. The more complex the system the more individual matrices are created. There is no need to count to 10^100,000 because there are patterns that specify a quantitive amount within an array of functions.

So no matter the biggest number you can't even imagine, somewhere near that number is a prime number that can be assigned a value of one for reference. Calculating prime numbers is much easier than counting by ones, twos, fives, tens, hundreds, and so on.

There's no need to display a number that size, only the path to said number because of numerical patterns consistent in every dimension.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, isn't there really only ten numbers repeated constantly in all directions of dimensions?

Only because we use base ten. If we used base 2, like the computers, there would only be two "numbers" (i.e.digits). If we used base 10^10000000, there would be 10^1000000 digits. We could use any whole number as a base.

 

[Tigron-X]

Only because we use base ten. If we used base 2, like the computers, there would only be two "numbers" (i.e.digits). If we used base 10^10000000, there would be 10^1000000 digits. We could use any whole number as a base.

A computer doesn't need 10 base points for reference because it can assign prime numbers a value of 1 and transfer the value to 0. It keeps the functions simple.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A computer doesn't need 10 base points for reference because it can assign prime numbers a value of 1 and transfer the value to 0. It keeps the functions simple.

This is nonsense. You need to study up on base representations AND prime numbers.

 

[ZeAsYn51]

Dear Gonzo

I agree with you but in a different way than you would want me to. I see and understand your argument, but I also see where you fall short in your examples. The brain has a failsafe mechanism that keeps at least some open memory, like a computer that is programmed to always have 10 GB of disk space on a 40 GB hard drive. The mechanism I speak of is dreams. Your brain cycles through unused information when you sleep, so that you would be very unlikely to use all of your mental capacity at any one given time. I do agree that there is only so much a mind can hold, but arent there other ways to store memories? Photos, movies, drawings, etc. Big numbers exist, they are simply combinations of smaller numbers. 69 is just a 9 stuck onto the butt of 6. They don't have to represent anything. They don't have to be units of something. The only thing they need in order to exist is a system by which to string one number after another. That's why numbers are so beautiful, they only have to be seen in the mind or on the computer screen to exist. Nothing more, nothing less.