What is the best pie you can get with 9 digits?

flat assembler > Heap > What is the best pie you can get with 9 digits?

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 Next

Author

Thread

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

You are allowed a maximum of nine ASCII characters (0x20-0x7e) only, this includes spaces and brackets etc., to write a representation of a number.

All standard mathematical symbols and functions etc. are allowed.

So I will start the ball rolling with:

"9+9+9+9+9"

But I'm sure you can do better.

Last edited by revolution on 09 Jan 2017, 19:18; edited 2 times in total

06 Mar 2008, 03:09

sinsi

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 688
Location: Adelaide

999999999

or something like 1e9999999

?

too bad there's not an infinity key... Laughing

06 Mar 2008, 03:17

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

sinsi wrote:

too bad there's not an infinity key...

infinity is not a number anyway, so even if there was an infinity key it wouldn't count Wink

06 Mar 2008, 04:00

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

sinsi wrote:

999999999

sinsi wrote:

1e9999999

Accept

Can anyone do better?

06 Mar 2008, 04:01

sinsi

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 688
Location: Adelaide

factorial? 99999999!
powers? 9^9^9^9^9 (might need brackets though)

The largest named number is googolplex - 10^googol (hah! 9 chars)

06 Mar 2008, 04:39

bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2776
Location: dank orb

9^9^9^9^9 is a large number

Edit: ah, ya beat me to it Smile

How about 99^googol then

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org

Last edited by bitRAKE on 06 Mar 2008, 04:44; edited 1 time in total

06 Mar 2008, 04:42

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

sinsi wrote:

99999999!

sinsi wrote:

9^9^9^9^9 (might need brackets though)

Accept. Without brackets use standard parsing to get the value

sinsi wrote:

10^googol

Accept

Can anyone do better?

Last edited by revolution on 06 Mar 2008, 04:46; edited 1 time in total

06 Mar 2008, 04:42

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

bitRAKE wrote:

9^9^9^9^9 is a large number

Too late, sinsi beat you to it.

06 Mar 2008, 04:44

bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2776
Location: dank orb

factorials!:

9^googol!
9!!!!!!!!

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org

06 Mar 2008, 04:48

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

bitRAKE wrote:

9^googol!

bitRAKE wrote:

9!!!!!!!!

Accept, but not very big, multifactorials are maybe not what you expect.

06 Mar 2008, 04:51

bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2776
Location: dank orb

Thanks for the link, superfactorial then:
9$$$$$$$$

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org

06 Mar 2008, 04:54

sinsi

Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 688
Location: Adelaide

Nice link, how about a hyperfactorial - H(999999)

Wow, this is getting too esoteric for me...

06 Mar 2008, 05:00

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

bitRAKE wrote:

9$$$$$$$$

Accept, (but what is the order of evaluation? I also don't know)

Can anyone do better?

06 Mar 2008, 05:01

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

sinsi wrote:

H(999999)

Accept, but smaller than 9$$$$$$$$

Can anyone do better?

06 Mar 2008, 05:02

Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7288
Location: Kraków, Poland

9($^9$$$)

the ^ applied to operator means the composition (so 9($^8)=9$$$$$$$$)

or even...

G($^G$$$)

06 Mar 2008, 06:08

DOS386

Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 1904

-ln(0)
abs(1/0)
(1/0)^2
ta2(pi/2)
ro90("8")

Crying or Very sad

Last edited by DOS386 on 06 Mar 2008, 06:21; edited 3 times in total

06 Mar 2008, 06:13

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

9($^9$$$)

Accept, but not with the explanation below, only accept for ^=power, in which case it doesn't make sense really, but the syntax is allowed

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

the ^ applied to operator means the composition (so 9($^8)=9$$$$$$$$)

Not accept, I don't think this is standard, you are not allowed to make up your own definition of symbols.

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

G($^G$$$)

edit: Accept Graham's number.

Last edited by revolution on 08 Mar 2008, 13:28; edited 2 times in total

06 Mar 2008, 06:15

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

DOS386 wrote:

-ln(0)
abs(1/0)
(1/0)^2
ta2(pi/2)

All not accept, results are undefined, or infinity, and thus not numbers.

06 Mar 2008, 06:17

Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7288
Location: Kraków, Poland

revolution wrote:

Not accept, I don't think this is standard, you are not allowed to make up your own definition of symbols.

It is standard to denote the repeated function composition in the same way as a power of number, see functional powers. I explained what it means just in case someone didn't know it, I didn't "make up my own definition".

06 Mar 2008, 06:23

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16621
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

revolution wrote:
Not accept, I don't think this is standard, you are not allowed to make up your own definition of symbols.

It is standard to denote the repeated function composition in the same way as a power of number, see functional powers.

Okay then, I accept, but it doesn't feel right to me.

But it doesn't matter really, because, so far, no one has come even close to putting a REALLY big number.

06 Mar 2008, 06:28

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29 Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >

Forum Rules:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum