420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
What's the biggest number? by Nathaniel Sacklespear - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 09:54:08 EST ID:XssdERJk No.15209 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1474638848911.jpg -(72632B / 70.93KB, 720x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 72632
Assume we had all the possible methods of information storage in the universe and all the resources of the universe at our whimsical disposal.

What's the largest number we could put down in some kind of recording before we ran out of universe?

So I guess the core question I'm asking is what's the most compact way to write large numbers? Is there anything that beats out scientific notation? And what's the greatest extreme to which we could conceivably take this?
>>
Edwin Gimbleforth - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:26:12 EST ID:ijd+nKqH No.15210 Ignore Report Quick Reply
So essentially you want, "what is the word size of the universe?". In compsci, word size is is the maximum size of the virtual address space, meaning all the available space in a system.

The number of atoms in the observable universe, is estimated to be between 4×10^79 and 4×10^81 so if the universe were a flat array of bits the size of atoms, and you used binary notation for each atom 0 or 1, you could by conservative estimate write out a positive number in full that equals 4 x 10^79 or write out positive and negative numbers in Two's Complement , by dividing that number in half and using 4 x 10^79 - 1 to be your 'flip bit' that indicates positive or negative.

As for greatest extreme, notice that a Googolplex is 10^Googol so 10^10^100 so develop a notation called Centillionplex that is 10^Centillion which is 10^10^303. Now develop a notation called Dollarillion which is 10^Centillionplex. Then a notation called Dollarillionplex which is 10^Dollarillion. The greatest extreme would be the notation for infinity I guess.
>>
Edwin Gimbleforth - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:31:07 EST ID:ijd+nKqH No.15211 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
>most compact way

Oops, just noticed that ques. Most compact is making up your own notation in different bases, Sci notation is base 10, Hex notation is base 16, so create something that is base Googolplex. You can also use Mod, to denote even or odd numbers. So in Mod2, you have 0, 1 only. 0 represents all even numbers, 1 represents all odd numbers. 1 + 1 = 0 (all even are 0), ect. nb
>>
Clara Menderbury - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 16:16:17 EST ID:CvIq3Csd No.15212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You can write down arbitrarily large numbers using arbitrarily few symbols.

Let f(x,y,1)=x+y, f(x,1,n)=x for any n>=2, and let f(x,y,n)=f(x,f(x,y-1,n),n-1). Then f(x,y,2)=x*y is multiplication, f(x,y,3)=x^y is exponentiation, and f(x,y,4) is tetration and so on. These operations grow faster and faster. Googolplex is tiny compared to f(2,3,10).
>>
Reuben Sovingbatch - Sun, 25 Sep 2016 03:34:41 EST ID:XssdERJk No.15215 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1474788881043.webm [mp4] -(3334721B / 3.18MB, 640x352) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>15210
>>15211
>>15212

You dudes are like sorcerers, this shit is mad cool. Thank you very much for the explanations. Have my favorite .webm

And if anyone thinks they can go bigger, please do
>>
Sidney Shittingstock - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:14:07 EST ID:bLacmKcV No.15222 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15215
The function linked below grows faster than any function you can write down a formula for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busy_beaver#The_busy_beaver_function_.CE.A3

The study of ``how fast things get big'' in math and computer science is called time complexity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_complexity

The study of Ramsey theory in math typically leads to talking about some large numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_theory

Also, you guys do know that there are different sizes of infinity and that there are people who are experts on classifying different kinds of infinities right?
>>
Fucking Favingman - Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:05:52 EST ID:FnqCMFm+ No.15224 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15222
>Also, you guys do know that there are different sizes of infinity and that there are people who are experts on classifying different kinds of infinities right?
Yeah, but this guy is talking about cardinal values, not ordinal values. It's supposed to be a question about what the largest number we could theoretically record, meaning it'll be of finite value. I know you provided more info than just that, I was just clarifying.
>>
Charlotte Chunnerpetch - Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:30:02 EST ID:9fX9//hV No.15226 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1475184602447.jpg -(14813B / 14.47KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Wow... this is easy and common knowledge... the biggest number is 24. Thought everyone already knew that.
>>
Frederick Siggletune - Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:48:20 EST ID:eUbhXyVl No.15227 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1475192900039.png -(130356B / 127.30KB, 219x257) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>15226
What about 25?
>>
Isabella Hoggleshit - Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:46:51 EST ID:sWygU/VW No.15228 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15227
Most large numbers like 25 are just arbitrary groupings of smaller numbers. The real question is what is the largest prime number?
>>
Charlotte Brezzlecheg - Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:09:09 EST ID:ZD4TCLS2 No.15229 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WabHm1QWVCA
>>
Beatrice Subberbanks - Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:49:46 EST ID:9fX9//hV No.15230 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I'll just leave this here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkP_OGDCLY0
>>
William Wonnergold - Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:08:38 EST ID:X69WEjIN No.15239 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15210
For reference, this "largest storable number" would be a number with approximately 1,204,120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000 digits in base-10.
>>
Eugene Mudgenag - Sun, 16 Oct 2016 08:24:12 EST ID:b5LuzqFV No.15245 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15239
What is that based on? The size of the observable universe?
>>
Thomas Nickledale - Sun, 16 Oct 2016 22:21:09 EST ID:GRYB1TGG No.15246 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15245
>The size of the observable universe?

What does that even mean? When our observations are constantly changing? The total number of atoms in the universe? What about the total number of quarks? What if we discover something even smaller and more numerous than that? Do you think we've already discovered the smallest thing? The largest storable number seems pretty meaningless, in that context.
>>
Walter Grandgold - Sun, 16 Oct 2016 23:18:00 EST ID:v1Le0MKE No.15247 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15246
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Educate yourself please. You know how to search.
>>
Thomas Nickledale - Mon, 17 Oct 2016 01:26:18 EST ID:GRYB1TGG No.15248 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15247
That doesn't answer my question at all.
>>
Esther Fazzlechire - Wed, 19 Oct 2016 14:27:29 EST ID:3FW0gDej No.15249 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The size of a representation space (e.g. number of bits in the universe) just gives us the number of different values that can be represented, not the greatest value that can be represented. Arbitrarily large values can be represented with single bit if the encoder and decoder share a common domain containing just that value.
>>
Cyril Faddlehood - Sat, 22 Oct 2016 23:13:07 EST ID:FnqCMFm+ No.15251 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15248
The observable universe is basically a round bubble, and it includes everything we are able to... observe. What that's saying is that it is the furthest distance that we can see light coming from, or that particles of light are able to interact with and be measured by some medium from our location on earth. Outside of that bubble, the universe we are able to see no longer interacts with or receives any information from any matter or particles that might lie outside.

If you can't grasp what observable light entails, then the concept is above you. It honestly shouldn't require explanation, but hopefully what I wrote helps. If it doesn't, sorry nigga, you just aren't gonna get it.
>>
Esther Pebberworth - Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:37:41 EST ID:XNyHHSTC No.15297 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15226
A bunch of cajoles!
24 is the highest number and thats it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkP_OGDCLY0
>>
Barnaby Brellyhick - Sat, 20 May 2017 21:51:19 EST ID:EJeHrwkJ No.15508 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
Whatever you make it man.
1953125
>>
Edward Smallbanks - Tue, 23 May 2017 02:05:16 EST ID:lub1zF0h No.15509 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Without doing something like "Base googleplex" the biggest numbers I have heard of people talking seriously about are the values of busy beaver function. The get very big.

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

But still even a countably infinite ordinal is bigger than these lames
>>
Barnaby Wannersteck - Tue, 23 May 2017 09:34:33 EST ID:+WL4MNee No.15510 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15509
There are lots of functions which grow faster than any computable function which people are interested in.

http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Googology_Wiki
>>
Charles Sennerstone - Sun, 28 May 2017 19:46:21 EST ID:lYjTKStM No.15514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15251
I think this is getting somewhere. The observable universe certainly is everything that we can currently have conceivably access to.

But, the amount of information the universe can store is much larger than you might expect.
It should be exactly equal to all possible arrangements of matter/energy inside the volume of the observable universe.
Of course that gets larger all the time because of cosmic inflation.

So you would have something like:
For each and every plank volume every possible subset of state of every possible subset of quantity of mass/energy.
Of course only a negligible fraction of those would be stable, but that's hardly the point.
The hard part is enumerating how many quantization states there are to arrive at an actual number.
>>
Angus Grandfoot - Mon, 29 May 2017 04:50:28 EST ID:lub1zF0h No.15515 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15514

Regardless of how much information could be stored in the observable universe by a method of your choice, the issue would be energy to store and access the information.

If there is information stored in a way that there is no physical way to access or decode it, is it really information for this purpose?
>>
Nicholas Fonkinfot - Wed, 31 May 2017 17:07:34 EST ID:lYjTKStM No.15516 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15515
Actually no. At least in the sense that TT has been posted in /math/

In a mathematical sense we are not interested how much of the universe has to be utilized to run the storage machine and how much is actual storage.
So I just assumed that the number OP is interested in is a theoretical upper bound of such mechanism in the sense that involved all matter/energy and space. Think of a omnipotent entity outside of the universe re-configuring it. Without actually adding or removing anything.

The number I described would be the number of ways such entity could possibly do that, which by the pigeonhole principle must be exactly the information storage capacity of the universe.
>>
Jenny Hinkinridge - Thu, 01 Jun 2017 22:54:27 EST ID:sMHQkkFd No.15518 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15516
In a mathematical sense we are not interested in the universe.
>>
Graham Dartspear - Sun, 18 Jun 2017 10:13:26 EST ID:EJeHrwkJ No.15521 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
4913
>>
Martin Surrywell - Thu, 29 Jun 2017 15:08:20 EST ID:h0vIir1X No.15532 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
hiffwe
>>
Wesley Feshham - Fri, 25 Aug 2017 23:59:07 EST ID:Kt7gF4g2 No.15551 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
Infinity is the closest truthful answer you will get. It's incomprehensible. The lie you'd get is a guesstimation based off of a simulation which will undoubtedly have confounding variables, variables not considered, etc.
>>
Molly Blimmerdock - Sat, 26 Aug 2017 19:59:57 EST ID:gFrVWF8h No.15553 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15551

Given any infinite ordinal there is a larger one. Given any infinite value, you can construct a larger one.
>>
Eliza Blackworth - Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:44:00 EST ID:z6ik/LbC No.15555 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15551
>It's incomprehensible.

For you maybe. Thousands of people have a solid understanding of infinity.
>>
Matilda Clipperhood - Sat, 09 Sep 2017 10:23:22 EST ID:vnPM6s0z No.15558 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>15209
tree fiddy


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.