Math geeks: A short *quiz* for you!

[frankfrank]

What is the largest possible finite number, which can be expressed by using only TWO WORDS? [Example: "twenty thousand" which, of course, isn't the answer.]

I warn you that this number is so incredibly huge, that such a quantity of sub-atomic particles would fill nearly an infinite number of Universes...

When this is over with - and I don't think anybody's going to get this - I'll name the number in English, though I doubt that any larger number is possible in any other language...

If there's a winner, you win absolutely nothing, other than the recognition of being one of the resident MATH GEEKS of justusboys.

 

[jasoncrew03]

Graham's Number.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

very big

stevey make good guesses

so

 

[Lithium22]

Two words? hmm...

Kirstie Alley


Ok, maybe a bad joke lol
sozz

 

[teadrinker]

Graham's Number.

That's what I was going to say! Nice one.

-T.

 

[frankfrank]

I think I'll limit it to numbers "not coined by Bowers" (there's a list of impossible numbers, apparently coined by this guy, the largest of which is Meameamealokkapoowa Oompa, which I cannot even TRY to explain - he has it as the largest named "infinity scraper" number.

It's so unexplainable that even the website, which lists it, makes no effort to describe it.

I'll have to look up Graham's Number, which I doubt is the same as my answer (or, OTOH, could be a more "common" name for my answer).

I'll close this out sometime after my daily email notification arrives 21 hours from now, Sunday night or later, and I'll include some links which will perfectly jive with your innermost geekness.

 

[frankfrank]

Naaaah...I think I'll give up now. I can't even UNDERSTAND whether Graham's Number is larger than the one that I had.

Originally I was thinking of a phrase where at least one of the words (if not both) defined either a finite number, or a specific mathematical operation. My original answer got left behind in the dust.

My original answer, if the two words are presented in plain text without subscripts, superscripts, or mathematical symbols...was GOOGLEPLEX FACTORIAL.

My new answer would be GOOGOLPLEXIAN (or GOOGLEDUPLEX) TETRATED. Or even better yet, GOOGOLPLEXIAN HYPER-TETRATED which I won't even TRY to explain...

Oh, what happens when I do some research which improves upon what I thought was the best answer, LOL...

googol is the number 10 to the exponential power of 100, or 1(and 100 zeroes).

googolplex is the number 1 with a GOOGOL of zeroes after it.

googolplexian = 1 followed by a GOOGOLPLEX of zeroes!

OK, that's googolplexian (or googolduplex).

***********
Tetrated:

4
..2 is 2, raised to the two-squared power squared, or to the 16th power. If this was (five)2 instead, it would be 2 raised exponentially to "two-to-the-sixteenth" power, or 2 raised to the 65,536th power.


googolplexian
...................googolplexian

is the notation for "googolplexian tetrated."

That means a tower of exponents a googolplexian number of layers tall. A googolplexian factorial number of universes, each one googolplexian factorial times larger than our universe, could not hold enough subatomic particles to represent this number.

I can't even understand Graham's Number enough to tell whether it's a number larger than this, LOL. I think I'll quit before my head explodes...and I won't even postulate what googolplexian hyper-tetrated is...

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

This is the site that shows "googolplexian" to be the largest number "not coined by Bowers"

http://www.********.com/bobbyyoo/

so, Jasoncrew03, I'll ASSUME you're the winner, lol!! I'm gonna quit before my head detonates and takes out the entire central Mississippi River Valley...

but, first, shall we change the numbering system from "Base 10" to "base tetrated googolplexian"? Of course we'll have to come up with names for all the digits in that system. Taking the 26 letters of the English alphabet, using each at the size of a sub-atomic particle, and having enough of these to fill our known universe, and taking every possible random arrangement of all those letters, there wouldn't be enough letters to give names to every digit in "base tetrated googolplexian."

I guess that number is kind of big. I can't count all the way to it tonight, or even tomorrow.

Do you want to lie awake all night? Consider this: theoretically there are MORE numbers than this, between 3.14159 and 3.14160, lol

uhoh...BOOM!

 

[star-warrior]

Isn't Graham's number + 1 = a number which is bigger than graham's number also a finite number?

 

[teadrinker]

Isn't Graham's number + 1 = a number which is bigger than graham's number also a finite number?

Certainly it is. But the OP asked for the largest finite number expressible in only two words. If you allowed transfinite numbers you could say "aleph null" (look it up).

-T.

 

[freefall]

Drat! I was gonna answer "Beyond Infinite!"
I'm serious.

 

[SonOfSlobone]

Certainly it is. But the OP asked for the largest finite number expressible in only two words. If you allowed transfinite numbers you could say "aleph null" (look it up).

-T.

... but of course aleph null is only the beginning of the transfinite cardinals. How they compare to each other depends on things like whether you believe the axiom of choice, etc...

 

[teadrinker]

^ and of course "large cardinals" such as Mahlo cardinals, can't be proven to exist in standard models of set theory such as ZFC.

-T.

 

[frankfrank]

What about St. Louis Cardinals?

 

[ShihTzuTylenol]

 

[SonOfSlobone]

&PS, I'd never heard of Graham's number, but judging from the description on Wikipedia, I'd say it's almost unbelievably immense, way bigger than googolplex factorial.

 

[mbamike]

Here you go. An explanation.

Graham's number is unimaginably larger than other well-known large numbers such as a googol, googolplex, and even larger than Skewes' number and Moser's number.

SOURCE: Wikipedia