Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

#1 2012-11-26 22:26:01

sulley
Member
Registered: 2012-11-26
Posts: 4

Massive Numbers

Hello all,

I was hoping you would be so kind as to help me with a problem that I'm having. I would like to calculate 141^(162^164), but the result is rather large and exceeds the capabilities of any software I have yet encountered.

I've tried using BC (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bc_programming_language), you probably know that it's a very capable arbitrary precision calculator, but it can't manage it, it tells me that the 'exponent is too large in raise'.

Does anyone have any ideas? Do I have any chance of producing an actual result?

It's might be worth telling you that I know C, so can write some code to help, but the issue I have is that the types available in C aren't big enough, so I wouldn't even know where to start.


Thanks,

Rob

Offline

#2 2012-11-26 22:52:25

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

Hi sulley;

Welcome to the forum!

The front part 16870151161094535473499554809767331400820946875159,,, called the mantissa is the first 50 digits of the number if you need more let me know.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

#3 2012-11-26 23:05:24

sulley
Member
Registered: 2012-11-26
Posts: 4

Re: Massive Numbers

Wow, impressive! Thank you very much. Can you share how you did it please?

Offline

#4 2012-11-26 23:08:45

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

There are a couple of ways of tackling tower problems as these are called.

There are math programs that can handle this large a  number directly.
Both Maxima using the BFloat class and Derive 6.1 are capable of getting this answer and I used Derive 6.1 to check.

There is a math way but it is a bit complicated if you have never seen it before.
Are you interested?

If you think that number is massive then think again:

that's massive^massive. 10 or more years ago I went after the front digit of that number. I was a mere lad of only 82 years of age so I figured I would bring it to its knees before I died...


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

#5 2012-11-27 02:23:24

anonimnystefy
Real Member
From: The Foundation
Registered: 2011-05-23
Posts: 14,801

Re: Massive Numbers

You never told which digit was actually the first one...


“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

Online

#6 2012-11-27 07:56:28

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

For the tower problem? I do not know which one it is.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

#7 2012-11-28 02:36:44

sulley
Member
Registered: 2012-11-26
Posts: 4

Re: Massive Numbers

bobbym wrote:

There is a math way but it is a bit complicated if you have never seen it before.
Are you interested?

Yes it would interest me, but realistically I will have very little use for the knowledge, so I won't take any more of your time.

bobbym wrote:


that's massive^massive. 10 or more years ago I went after the front digit of that number. I was a mere lad of only 82 years of age so I figured I would bring it to its knees before I died...

Doesn't that make you 92? Or am I missing something.


Thanks again for you help,

Rob

Last edited by sulley (2012-11-28 02:37:10)

Offline

#8 2012-11-28 03:33:21

bob bundy
Moderator
Registered: 2010-06-20
Posts: 6,092

Re: Massive Numbers

Or am I missing something.

Yes!  bobbym regularly lies about his age.

As far as I know only three people know for sure, and two of those are doubtful.  smile

Bob


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

Offline

#9 2012-11-28 04:09:54

anonimnystefy
Real Member
From: The Foundation
Registered: 2011-05-23
Posts: 14,801

Re: Massive Numbers

Well, he has given us some info about his age. He was born on the 3rd of July and on Sunday...

Last edited by anonimnystefy (2012-11-28 04:10:48)


“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

Online

#10 2012-11-28 05:29:26

bob bundy
Moderator
Registered: 2010-06-20
Posts: 6,092

Re: Massive Numbers

Is that reliable information though?

Bob


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

Offline

#11 2012-11-28 07:20:44

anonimnystefy
Real Member
From: The Foundation
Registered: 2011-05-23
Posts: 14,801

Re: Massive Numbers

I think so.


“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

Online

#12 2012-11-28 07:34:46

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

Hi sulley and all;

I was not born in July. Records of my birth have been destroyed. Hospital burned down and so did the rectory.

Yes it would interest me, but realistically I will have very little use for the knowledge, so I won't take any more of your time.

Then it will die with me. It does appear I am 92 but no one believes that so sometimes I am younger.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

#13 2012-12-05 05:26:53

sulley
Member
Registered: 2012-11-26
Posts: 4

Re: Massive Numbers

I'm back again! Is that 92 in hex?

I have an even bigger challenge for you, would you be so kind as to calculate 141!^(162!^164!) for me please? to as large an accuracy as you dare! (ridiculous,  I know!)


Thanks,

Rob

Offline

#14 2012-12-05 08:44:19

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

Hi;

That is 92 in decimal. Your question boils down to this:

which means it is larger than my current limit of 9^(9^(9^5)). As a matter of fact
it is larger than 9^(9^(9^(9))) which I have struggled with for more than 10 years.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

#15 2012-12-05 09:00:48

anonimnystefy
Real Member
From: The Foundation
Registered: 2011-05-23
Posts: 14,801

Re: Massive Numbers

Hi bobbym

Is there a way to get the front digits of a number other than the one you showed me in the big Oh thread?


“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

Online

#16 2012-12-05 09:05:11

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

Hi;

That is the only one that I use consistently. Of course there are other methods but they are all experimental.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

#17 2012-12-05 09:07:36

anonimnystefy
Real Member
From: The Foundation
Registered: 2011-05-23
Posts: 14,801

Re: Massive Numbers

Do you know any?


“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

Online

#18 2012-12-05 09:10:40

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

This suggests another method but in this case it fails. As a matter of fact it fails for
9^(9^(9^9))) too! His number is just too large.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

#19 2012-12-05 09:32:38

anonimnystefy
Real Member
From: The Foundation
Registered: 2011-05-23
Posts: 14,801

Re: Massive Numbers

I meant-do you have another method for evaluating those kinds of numbers in general, for example, less than 9^9^9^5?


“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

Online

#20 2012-12-05 09:43:51

bobbym
Administrator
From: Bumpkinland
Registered: 2009-04-12
Posts: 81,371

Re: Massive Numbers

Hi;

For 9^9^9^5 ( I leave out the bracketing from now on ) is a major undertaking and I used a
recurrence.

And you missed my point, post #18 does suggest another way.


In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.
I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.
All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Online

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB