You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,536

hi

Can you prove this is bigger than the number from post #23 ?

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

Yup.Your number has 27 digits (look at wolfram's output).Mine clearly has 51.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,536

Fair enough. I bow to your use of Wolfram to actually calculate the number.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

I didn't calculate the whole number. It showed it in tge form a.bcdefg... x 10^26. There were a few more digits in the decimal,but tge number still stays 27 digits long. What is your number?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,536

So I'll have

This number needs no computation as such but if you wanted to write it down, then, at one digit per second, you could do it in half a year.

You haven't set a limit on how much paper I am allowed.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

Computers can carry out those computations in quite a reasonable time,so I think it would be accepted. You can even get a closed form of that by hand and it becomes quite obvious what the number is.

My number is (((3!)!)!)!

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**Stangerzv****Member**- Registered: 2012-01-30
- Posts: 194

There is no such thing biggest number but bigger number because of the fact 1/x is too big when x=0. If there is such thing biggest number, it could always be 1 because the infinite universe was confined in a single unit when t=0s during the big bang:)

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

Yes,that is right. But the point is finding a bigger number than somwbody else in the quest of searching for the biggest number,which of course doesn't exist.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**ganesh****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-28
- Posts: 15,193

anonimnystefy wrote:

My number is (((3!)!)!)!

And my number is

Character is who you are when no one is looking.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

2**googolplex

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,536

Wooah! Are you planning to compute this number in half a year?

Bob

Offline

**ganesh****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-28
- Posts: 15,193

anonimnystefy wrote:

2**googolplex

The smallest number apart from 0 and 1 which is a perfect square, cube, fourth, fifth, ..... and googolplexth power.

Character is who you are when no one is looking.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

Apparently it is 10^10^10^2 away from ganesh's number.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,536

Are you planning to compute this number in half a year?

Bob

Offline

**ganesh****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-28
- Posts: 15,193

Hi anonimnystefy,

The smallest number apart from 0 and 1 which is a perfect square, cube, fourth, fifth, ...., and one thousandth power is roughly

.The number which is the smallest number apart from 0 and 1 which is a perfect square, cube, fourth, fifth, .... and googolplexth power which would be much much greater!

Character is who you are when no one is looking.

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,536

But I want to know that you can compute these suggestions.

Your number must also be computable in a reasonable amount of time (e.g. Within half a year ).

Bob

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

I think it will be better if ganesh answred that question,cause mine is just a one added to the 10^10^2 place.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

PS. Wolfram says 4^4^4^4 is less than (((3!)!)!)!

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**ganesh****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-28
- Posts: 15,193

I estimate the number by rough calculation. The answer would be roughly lesser than

.I am not sure with the powers. The only I may say with some degree of accuracy is the upper limit seems relatively certain.

Character is who you are when no one is looking.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

anonimnystefy wrote:

PS. Wolfram says 4^4^4^4 is less than (((3!)!)!)!

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**ganesh****Moderator**- Registered: 2005-06-28
- Posts: 15,193

I think you are right. Your number is bigger.

I overlooked the number of factorial symbols.

Character is who you are when no one is looking.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

It's okay.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,536

So am I correct that

(((3!)!)!)!

is the biggest so far that is computable?

Bob

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,673

Yup.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline