Largest Number Game - Start at 1!

[AndreasC]

Graham's number

Doesn't count unless you express it in established mathematical notation.

 

[Baluncore]

 

[AndreasC]

Oof so we're already going there. It's going to get tough from now on.

 

[etotheipi]

Okay, TREE(3).

 

[AndreasC]

Okay, TREE(3).

Remember the rule! I know it is a known mathematical number but the point of the thread is to be able to write it down using common mathematical notation. Unless someone already knows about that tiny tiny area of math in particular they're not going to know what a TREE(3) is.

 

[gmax137]

I think this would have been more interesting to the non-mathematicians if, for each new number, the poster had to tell us the number of digits in the (base 10) representation. Remember, this thread is in General Discussion.

 

[jbriggs444]

I think this would have been more interesting to the non-mathematicians if, for each new number, the poster had to tell us the number of digits in the (base 10) representation. Remember, this thread is in General Discussion.

The number of digits in Graham's number, for instance, is nearly as staggering as the number itself and is best written as log(Graham's number).

But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe.

It's freaking big.

 

[mathman]

How about googolplex? A googol $=10^{100}$, googolplex $=10^{googol}$.

 

[nuuskur]

This is starting to degenerate to the form $X_{n+1} = X_n + K$ for some $K$.

 

[AndreasC]

I think this would have been more interesting to the non-mathematicians if, for each new number, the poster had to tell us the number of digits in the (base 10) representation. Remember, this thread is in General Discussion.

I originally made the thread in the General math section but it was moved here.

Anyways, we're still at Graham's number, and I have some ideas to get some number that is significantly larger but I want to see what other people have.

 

[AndreasC]

How about googolplex? A googol $=10^{100}$, googolplex $=10^{googol}$.

That's way smaller.

 

[gmax137]

Ronald Lewis Graham (October 31, 1935 – July 6, 2020)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Graham

 

[DifferentialGalois]

Rayo's Number = Rayo(10^100) where Rayo(n) is uncomputable :P

 

[BWV]

Ignoring the game and just listing an interesting big number

25^1312000 is ‘Borges’ number’ - the number of books in the Library of Babel