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

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

Hi;

Yes, you are.

**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.**

Offline

**Dets65****Member**- Registered: 2013-05-15
- Posts: 7

OK then ; Graham's number Factorial (Couldn't use !, look like an exclamation.)

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

I think you are trying to beat the current champ post #71. Which looks like an Ackermann function.

Your number does not even touch it.

**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.**

Offline

**Dets65****Member**- Registered: 2013-05-15
- Posts: 7

Ok then, Graham's number ^ graham's number Graham's number ^ graham's number times

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

Nope, Ackermann's Function with Graham numbers is bigger than any tower power.

**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.**

Offline

**Dets65****Member**- Registered: 2013-05-15
- Posts: 7

Have we reached the limit???????

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

Nope, we could very unimaginatively say +1 as long as we like.

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.

Offline

**Dets65****Member**- Registered: 2013-05-15
- Posts: 7

I know, but we can't really name anything now except for Graham's number (and that's been taken for a long time)

and power towers don't even work. Would exponents or something (don't really matter how complex it is) work? (And I agree, I don't want to just add 1 infinite times.)

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

A power tower is a bunch of exponents.As far as I. know the Ackermann function is the biggest.

For instance for the 3rd Ackermann number we have.

And that is only the third one.

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.

Offline

**mathgogocart****Member**- Registered: 2012-04-29
- Posts: 1,426

90000000000000000000000000000000000000000000^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

P.S.Yeah

Hey.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

Oooh, that is a teeny, tiny one. But maybe it will grow if we water it.

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.

Offline

**mathgogocart****Member**- Registered: 2012-04-29
- Posts: 1,426

bobbym wrote:

Oooh, that is a teeny, tiny one. But maybe it will grow if we water it.

Yes,it will grow so big that it is bigger than the universe.

Hey.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

Yes it is bigger than the universe but it is teeny, tiny and teensy next to the Ackermann Function.

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.

Offline

**mathgogocart****Member**- Registered: 2012-04-29
- Posts: 1,426

sadly,the Ackermann Function ate my number!!

P.S.what is the ackermann function,simply

?

Hey.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 82,627

Hi mathgogocart;

The simplest is

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.

Offline

**philandy****Member**- Registered: 2013-06-10
- Posts: 11

I'll bite and hope I lose! Okay, first all my variables will be 999e999 or 999*10^999. Graham's number is actually a function so I think we should build them ourselves rather than relying on others to do it.

Hyperoperation a for a and a (wiki has a good article).

*Last edited by philandy (2013-06-11 05:22:48)*

Offline