Opinion of Graham's number

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham's_number

[Alcon]

Apparently I suck at math even more than I thought.  What's this have to do with politics?

[Sensei]

I can do multivariable calculus in my sleep and I don't know what the hell this number means.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I can do multivariable calculus in my sleep and I don't know what the hell this number means.

     Exactly. Graham's number is badassery enumerated.

[A18]

Apparently I suck at math even more than I thought.  What's this have to do with politics?

It's the projected federal deficit for this fiscal year.

[opebo]

God damn it, I thought you were going to give us Lindsey Graham's personal telephone number and its just this sh**t.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What's this have to do with politics?

As much as the Cambrian Explosion.

[War on Want]

I hate math.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

This thread reminds me how much my maths skills & knowledge have declined since I left secondary school. Though I LOL at the idea of a number being unexpressable due to the limitations of the universe, I also second what PiT said.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm kind of wondering how he calculated it. There isn't enough hard drive space in the world to hold all the digits so even computers wouldn't be very useful. It appears though that we don't even know the first digits, just the last ones.

[Purple State]

This thread reminds me how much my maths skills & knowledge have declined since I left secondary school. Though I LOL at the idea of a number being unexpressable due to the limitations of the universe, I also second what PiT said.

Well googelplex (a 1 followed by googel 0's, where googel equals a 1 followed by 100 zeroes, also expressed as 10^10^100) can't be expressed due to lack of space in the universe also. And Graham's number is far larger apparently. I would just like to know how many digits there are in the number.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This thread reminds me how much my maths skills & knowledge have declined since I left secondary school. Though I LOL at the idea of a number being unexpressable due to the limitations of the universe, I also second what PiT said.

Well googelplex (a 1 followed by googel 0's, where googel equals a 1 followed by 100 zeroes, also expressed as 10^10^100) can't be expressed due to lack of space in the universe also. And Graham's number is far larger apparently. I would just like to know how many digits there are in the number.

Yes but a googleplex can be easily expressed by shorthand notation like you have there. This can't.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This thread reminds me how much my maths skills & knowledge have declined since I left secondary school. Though I LOL at the idea of a number being unexpressable due to the limitations of the universe, I also second what PiT said.

Well googelplex (a 1 followed by googel 0's, where googel equals a 1 followed by 100 zeroes, also expressed as 10^10^100) can't be expressed due to lack of space in the universe also. And Graham's number is far larger apparently. I would just like to know how many digits there are in the number.

     If I grasp the concept of up-arrow notation as well as I think, the first layer is equal to 3¹⁹⁶⁸³. The next layer's number of arrows is equal to the previous layer's value, so the second layer is a power tower of threes, 3¹⁹⁶⁸³ terms high. There are 62 more layers after that. Suffice it to say it's huge.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This thread reminds me how much my maths skills & knowledge have declined since I left secondary school. Though I LOL at the idea of a number being unexpressable due to the limitations of the universe, I also second what PiT said.

Well googelplex (a 1 followed by googel 0's, where googel equals a 1 followed by 100 zeroes, also expressed as 10^10^100) can't be expressed due to lack of space in the universe also. And Graham's number is far larger apparently. I would just like to know how many digits there are in the number.

     If I grasp the concept of up-arrow notation as well as I think, the first layer is equal to 3¹⁹⁶⁸³. The next layer's number of arrows is equal to the previous layer's value, so the second layer is a power tower of threes, 3¹⁹⁶⁸³ terms high. There are 62 more layers after that. Suffice it to say it's huge.

Can you guess how many digits?

[Associate Justice PiT]

This thread reminds me how much my maths skills & knowledge have declined since I left secondary school. Though I LOL at the idea of a number being unexpressable due to the limitations of the universe, I also second what PiT said.

Well googelplex (a 1 followed by googel 0's, where googel equals a 1 followed by 100 zeroes, also expressed as 10^10^100) can't be expressed due to lack of space in the universe also. And Graham's number is far larger apparently. I would just like to know how many digits there are in the number.

     If I grasp the concept of up-arrow notation as well as I think, the first layer is equal to 3¹⁹⁶⁸³. The next layer's number of arrows is equal to the previous layer's value, so the second layer is a power tower of threes, 3¹⁹⁶⁸³ terms high. There are 62 more layers after that. Suffice it to say it's huge.

Can you guess how many digits?

     I could try to find the second layer's value to extrapolate it, but I have no means to figure out the value of tower of threes nearly 10⁹³⁹¹ terms high. That already is far larger than a google.

     To answer your question, no. Any finite number of digits you could come up with would be far, far smaller than the number of digits in Graham's number.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So I read up on the arrow notation, and basically with four arrows between the 3s, you already have a number larger than a google. The next layer is calculate the same...except with the results of the first layer being the number of arrows. Repeat 62 times. So yeah, even the number of digits is a number so large we don't have a name for it.

The amusing thing is that this is the upper bound in a range where the lower bound is 6. Basically any number between 6 and this could answer a certain problem.

[Eraserhead]

I hate math.

[Purple State]

So I read up on the arrow notation, and basically with four arrows between the 3s, you already have a number larger than a google. The next layer is calculate the same...except with the results of the first layer being the number of arrows. Repeat 62 times. So yeah, even the number of digits is a number so large we don't have a name for it.

The amusing thing is that this is the upper bound in a range where the lower bound is 6. Basically any number between 6 and this could answer a certain problem.

Please let it be 6.001