Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RulerOfNothing]

#include "universe.ucode"

int numberize(class it, int universal)
{
             int a;
             a = universe.sendgetclassvalue(it);
             if(universal) {a = makeuniversalnumber(a);}
             return a;
}

Also it would help if you said how wide an int is, because if it's only 32 bits then it can't hold a value higher than 2,147,483,647.

[lonjil]

1=0
If you can work it out it's ridiculous.

The proof for 1=0 build on top of division of zero.
Not ridiculous, just ignorant of maths.

And since nobody is dwarfing my number I'll make another one.




I(I(..(I(Graham's number, Graham's number), Graham's number) ..), Graham's number)
Where the number of I's are equal to I(Graham's number, Graham's number).

[Xantalos]

Hm? No, the other one.

[Scionox]

Also it would help if you said how wide an int is, because if it's only 32 bits then it can't hold a value higher than 2,147,483,647.

Universal int ofcourse, but it's all defined in universe code.

And since nobody is dwarfing my number

Many people already did.

[lonjil]

And since nobody is dwarfing my number

Many people already did.

How? To my eye's the number's after mine were small or seemed ill-defined.

Also my name is lonjil, not Ionjil.

[HFS]

The numbers that have already been posted are so incomprehensibly massive that it's pointless to continue.

[RulerOfNothing]

The numbers that have already been posted are so incomprehensibly massive that it's pointless to continue.

This is absolutely correct.

[lonjil]

The numbers that have already been posted are so incomprehensibly massive that it's pointless to continue.

You think this is incomprehensible?
Go take a look in the My number is bigger! thread over at the xkcd forums.   

[Scionox]

And since nobody is dwarfing my number

Many people already did.

How? To my eye's the number's after mine were small or seemed ill-defined.

Also my name is lonjil, not Ionjil.

If you think universe is ill-defined, so be it, i suppose, we aren't living in universe after all, we are just floating in the non-existence, yeah, exactly.
Also sorry about name, i sometimes tend to take l's for I's, just fixed it.

[HFS]

The numbers that have already been posted are so incomprehensibly massive that it's pointless to continue.

You think this is incomprehensible?
Go take a look in the My number is bigger! thread over at the xkcd forums.   

Eh, I could go on and on and on with recursive functions and such, but then it just gets silly.

Much easier to just put "If you think up something better than this, I will take your number and put it into [insert function here]".

[lonjil]

And since nobody is dwarfing my number

Many people already did.

How? To my eye's the number's after mine were small or seemed ill-defined.

Also my name is lonjil, not Ionjil.

If you think universe is ill-defined, so be it, i suppose, we aren't living in universe after all, we are just floating in the non-existence, yeah, exactly.
Also sorry about name, i sometimes tend to take l's for I's, just fixed it.

In this definition

m, where m is the number of things in all of existence, and all possible combinations of those things, including information and component parts. Assume finite existence to prevent infinity.

the number of things in existence is used, we don't know how much stuff there is, thus, ill-defined.
And we really don't know much about the universe. If we're going to use the universe, we should use theories, not `universe'.

[HFS]

The numbers that have already been posted are so incomprehensibly massive that it's pointless to continue.

[Remuthra]

Did you not know the number system was circular? -9E70

[GreatWyrmGold]

The numbers that have already been posted are so incomprehensibly massive that it's pointless to continue.

There's only one person to blame...the guy who brought out Graham's Number.

[evilcherry]

n, when n is the number of distinct facts in existence in the universe.

Thus is still far, far smaller than Graham's number, nevermind Ackermann (g64, g64).