Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
8 Comments
Mordhausjokingly says...We used to do this in kindergarten, infinity + 1.
articiansays...Beat me to the same comment.
We used to do this in kindergarten, infinity + 1.
newtboyjokingly says...I know you are, but what am I, times infinity +2...touching black, no backs!
We used to do this in kindergarten, infinity + 1.
jmdsays...I had to take discrete math for computer science so I got a good grasp of it. It is merely envisioning everything as groups, rather than values. You don't have to DO anything to the groups, just realise what's inside those groups. In the end though it is merely a well organised way of indicating larger numbers for processing, not intended to find a specific number. I'm not sure what practicality there is for organizing the super large numbers like this either.
greatgooglymooglysays...So according to this guy, I can declare a new axiom, and according to this axiom the biggest number is Bert. Whatever number you can think of, Bert is bigger and it is so because I said it was. Cool.
Nephelimdreamjokingly says...I can count to 21, if I get naked.
Paybacksays...Ernie is way cooler than Bert, therefore larger.
So according to this guy, I can declare a new axiom, and according to this axiom the biggest number is Bert. Whatever number you can think of, Bert is bigger and it is so because I said it was. Cool.
Zawashsays...Graham's number is for me big enough for most purposes.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.