Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, I meant "biggest number known to humanino before Hurkyl's post". Thanks.
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?)