Print

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

[silhouette]

Where n = the highest value in this thread.

N+1

... hehehehe....

[ed boy]

Where n = the highest value in this thread.

N+1

... hehehehe....

-Don't use other people's numbers in yours. For example, I don't want to see "X's number plus one".

[Armok]

I don't know enough math to be very confident in it, but I still think line is larger.

[Toaster]

The problem is yours is indeterminate. The values of the BB function above 4 aren't known, as the function itself is noncomputable.  Ackermann is computable... it just takes forever.

[Ochita]

If you had enough time, write out as a sequence of digits

[SHAD0Wdump]

This will probably have me laughed out of the topic but...

Pi... For sheer numerical length.

[Armok]

I thoguht BB was incomputable in general, but any specific one like BB(3^^^3) can be computed but only by a longer program?

[Virex]

This will probably have me laughed out of the topic but...

Pi... For sheer numerical length.

Erm, the OP specifically excluded infinity

[SHAD0Wdump]

Erm, the OP specifically excluded infinity

You don't know it's infinite.

[Virex]

It is in any rational base. (Which makes me think of it, counting in base pi would be WEIRD). If we're assuming a rational base, then it's possible to prove that pi is irrational and as a result the length of pi must be infinite.

[Rolan7]

The problem is yours is indeterminate. The values of the BB function above 4 aren't known, as the function itself is noncomputable.  Ackermann is computable... it just takes forever.

How exactly is it noncomputable?  Would it would take longer than the Earth is expected to last, or require more calculation bits than there are atoms in the universe?

My number: 2^(number of particles in the universe).  It can be expressed as a sequence of digits by arranging said particles in a number of rows.

Of course, it's not hard to describe a larger bigger than that.  Just use more rows.  It won't be as easy to compute (3 rows wouldn't be base 3 because there aren't enough particles) but with infinite space and finite particles you can form an infinite number of unique shapes.  I don't know if those would be computable though.  I think 2^(number of particles in the universe) is though.

P.S. I dropped my math major so the above is worse than BS.

[Toaster]

How's your computer science?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver

I can't find the paper in which it's proved, so that's the best I can do.

[Dwarfaholic]

Well, eh, I'll give this a shot.

Just something like TREE(TREE(G!)) and whatever similar things can be easily made from that.