What is the biggest number?

  • Thread starter Galteeth
  • Start date
  • #1
52
1
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
CompuChip
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
4,306
48
Actually I thought this one was funnier.
 
  • #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
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
DaveC426913
Gold Member
19,938
3,183
Second for Graham's number.

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
Redbelly98
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
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.
 
  • #14
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
Infinity is a concept, not a number.
While probably true given some interpretation of these words, there are several number systems that have numbers named "infinity" or some variation thereof.
 
  • #15
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,950
19
  • #16
CompuChip
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
4,306
48
It's 42

No no ,you got it all backwards!

(And we're back at post #1)
 
  • #17
1,031
18
What about [URL [Broken] constant[/url]?
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
210
53
Jimmy's back to mine-is-bigger game.

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
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.
You kill me.
 
  • #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
Isn't the point of mathematics that there isn't?
There simply are infinitely many numbers, so whenever we need to represent them we can always find a way to express them mathematically, like
[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
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?)
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.
 
  • #24
Redbelly98
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
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.
 

Related Threads on What is the biggest number?

  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
8K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
61
Views
8K
F
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
52
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
63
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
Top