- #1

- 52

- 1

Last edited by a moderator:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Galteeth
- Start date

- #1

- 52

- 1

Last edited by a moderator:

- #2

- #3

- 2,461

- 8

Biggest named number is Googolplex

- #4

- 65

- 0

Biggest number is ZERO.

- #5

CompuChip

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 4,306

- 48

Or sup **R**?

- #6

- 590

- 48

The biggest number is infinity minus one.

- #7

Integral

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 7,212

- 56

The biggest number is infinity minus one.

Are you sure? how about infinity - .5 ... no wait....maybe infinity - .1 .... no wait...

Gee maybe there is NO biggest number.

- #8

- 1,565

- 7

Are you sure? how about infinity - .5 ... no wait....maybe infinity - .1 .... no wait...

Gee maybe there is NO biggest number.

No, its infinity minus one over infinity.

- #9

- 590

- 48

Are you sure? how about infinity - .5 ... no wait....maybe infinity - .1 .... no wait...

Gee maybe there is NO biggest number.

You're right. My mistake.

Infinity minus one is the largest WHOLE number.

- #10

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

What about [URL [Broken] constant[/url]?Biggest named number is Googolplex

Last edited by a moderator:

- #11

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 19,938

- 3,183

Infinity is a concept, not a number. Graham's number has the distinction of being the largest number ever used in a serious work of math.

And it is large indeed. In fact, it leaves 'large' lying upside-down on the dirt track, feet in the air with one shoe off and its frillies billowing in the breeze.

- #12

- 12,133

- 160

You're right. My mistake.

Infinity minus one is the largest WHOLE number.

That would be true if infinity were a whole number, but it isn't.

- #13

- 1,031

- 18

It's 42

- #14

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

While probably true given some interpretation of these words, there are several number systems that have numbers named "infinity" or some variation thereof.Infinity is a concept, not a number.

- #15

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

That's not a big number: that's a big numeral.It's 42

- #16

CompuChip

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 4,306

- 48

- #17

- 1,031

- 18

You're forgetting Jimmy's constant J equal to Graham's constant plus one. There's a mathematical theorem that makes use of Jimmy's constant in the form J - 1.What about [URL [Broken] constant[/url]?

Last edited by a moderator:

- #18

- 210

- 53

I think jobyts constant is bigger than any of other constants. It's defined as Pi without the dot.

- #19

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 19,938

- 3,183

YouYou're forgetting Jimmy's constant J equal to Graham's constant plus one. There's a mathematical theorem that makes use of Jimmy's constant in the form J - 1.

- #20

- 2,461

- 8

What about [URL [Broken] constant[/url]?

Sorry, I meant "biggest number known to humanino before Hurkyl's post". Thanks.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #21

- 52

- 1

Sorry, I meant "biggest number known to humanino before Hurkyl's post". Thanks.

Well, the thread is a joke, but it is an interesting question, as in if there's a semantic limit to the ability to coherently represent a number. In other words, what would be the biggest real number hypothetically represented by all the possible symbols imbued with maximum semantic sense (by semantic sense, i mean, we can say G64 in regards to graham's number and that can have some semantic meaning, but surely at ooe point there's an absolute limit that would actualy be representable?)

Last edited:

- #22

CompuChip

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 4,306

- 48

There simply

[tex]10^{10^6}, 3 \uparrow\uparrow\uparrow 64 \text{ or } x[/tex]

Or am I really misunderstanding your question, Galteeth?

- #23

- 1,031

- 18

Let A be the set of all positive integers that cannot be represented by all the possible symbols imbued with maximum semantic sense. This set must have a smallest element. That element has just been represented by symbols imbued with semantic sense. Therefore, the set A must be empty.Well, the thread is a joke, but it is an interesting question, as in if there's a semantic limit to the ability to coherently represent a number. In other words, what would be the biggest real number hypothetically represented by all the possible symbols imbued with maximum semantic sense (by semantic sense, i mean, we can say G64 in regards to graham's number and that can have some semantic meaning, but surely at ooe point there's an absolute limit that would actualy be representable?)

- #24

- 12,133

- 160

Ha ha, I just got around to watching this. The bits at the end were pretty good too.

Last edited by a moderator:

- #25

Borek

Mentor

- 28,807

- 3,305

There's a mathematical theorem that makes use of Jimmy's constant in the form J - 1.

Strangely, same can be said about B-2.

Share: