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 Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 27, 28, 29 Next

Author

Thread

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:

The next step is aleph_w

It really should be written like this:

but I've found the "aleph_w" writing quite usual in emails etc.

Okay, I accept email translations of this sort of thing. But only because it won't help you at all. Twisted Evil

You are all still not there yet, but getting warmer.

06 Mar 2008, 10:40

tom tobias

Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa

Tomasz wrote:

...in the 9 characters....

For those poor souls, like me, who have been completely lost in this discussion, since at least the issue of Knuth's up-arrow notation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation
allow me to suggest that "aleph", is not a typographical error, but rather a symbol employed to describe "transfinite", whatever that means, sets of cardinal numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_numbers
To me, this question of revolution is comparable to asking how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin, though I acknowledge revolution's query as worthy of consideration by those inspired by such unfathomable concepts as infinity and beyond. I am puzzled though, why one should interpret "9 characters", as meaning nine ASCII characters? Why not nine CHINESE characters? How big a number can we produce in that circumstance? What happens to Cantor's set theory when it employs non-Arabic numerals? To what extent is this supposed "mathematics" instead dependant upon language to reveal itself? The very notion of using a Roman letter based character set (9 symbols) to describe a fundamental attribute of an arithmetic property seems a bit limited, to me. Further, since the aleph symbol is NOT a part of the roman alphabet, hasn't revolution's constraint: "9 characters", already been violated??....

06 Mar 2008, 11:03

MHajduk

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5990
Location: Poland

revolution wrote:

You are all still not there yet, but getting warmer.

"There"? Where? Wink

We can't write "largest" number, because mathematicians can build infinite sequence of different abstract numbers and always somebody can construct larger number. This kind of competition would be infinite. Very Happy

06 Mar 2008, 11:07

asmhack

Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431

9^^^^^^^9

06 Mar 2008, 11:12

edfed

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4174
Location: 2018

9/(log0)

06 Mar 2008, 11:13

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

tom tobias wrote:

why one should interpret "9 characters", as meaning nine ASCII characters?

Because I specifically stated that in the very first post as one of the rules. "Aleph" is 5 ASCII characters, not one Aleph character, so it complies. It describes a number and so meets the constraints given.

MHajduk wrote:

We can't write "largest" number, because mathematicians can build infinite sequence of different abstract numbers and always somebody can construct larger number. This kind of competition would be infinite

But there are defined limits: 9 characters, ASCII char set, must be a number using standard definitions.

"There" being the inability to write a larger number under those conditions. So far all the numbers posted can be beaten within those restrictions.

06 Mar 2008, 11:17

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

asmhack wrote:

9^^^^^^^9

Accept, but very small.

06 Mar 2008, 11:19

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

edfed wrote:

9/(log0)

Reject, log0 is undefined?

06 Mar 2008, 11:20

asmhack

Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431

revolution wrote:

asmhack wrote:
9^^^^^^^9
Accept, but very small.

with ^ i mean up arrow

06 Mar 2008, 11:24

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

asmhack wrote:

revolution wrote:

asmhack wrote:
9^^^^^^^9
Accept, but very small.

with ^ i mean up arrow

Not accept up arrow, but even if I did it would still be small compared to some other numbers already posted here.

06 Mar 2008, 11:27

victor

Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 126
Location: Utopia

revolution wrote:

So far all the numbers posted can be beaten within those restrictions.

Let me end the game with this representation: unlimited (nine characters). It is unbeatable!!! Twisted Evil

I know that revolution would come along and say, "not a number." Sad

06 Mar 2008, 11:37

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

victor wrote:

unlimited (nine characters). It is unbeatable!!!

I know that revolution would come along and say, "not a number."

Never one to disappoint - not a number

06 Mar 2008, 11:39

asmhack

Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431

revo, you didn't mentioned the A={IN,IR} ?
are numbers like pi supported ?
are limits then supported ?
why functions are supported ?

06 Mar 2008, 12:15

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

asmhack wrote:

revo, you didn't mentioned the A={IN,IR} ?

I'm not sure what you mean here?

asmhack wrote:

are numbers like pi supported ?

Yes

asmhack wrote:

are limits then supported ?

Sure, if you can express them in ASCII 7bit with 9 char limit

asmhack wrote:

why functions are supported ?

Why not. Nothing wrong with pi(x) or ack(x) (except for being too small), they describe numbers perfectly.

06 Mar 2008, 12:25

victor

Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 126
Location: Utopia

Final attempt: Beth two. Evil or Very Mad

06 Mar 2008, 12:28

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

victor wrote:

Beth two

Accept. But already bigger numbers previously posted.

Can anyone do better?

06 Mar 2008, 12:32

Artlav

Joined: 23 Dec 2004
Posts: 188
Location: Moscow, Russia

Hm.

"n:Vk:n>k"

Where V denotes universal quantifier.
That is, number n, that for any given number k is n>k.

Not sure quantifier count as ASCII chars, then

"Any k:n>k"
may do

06 Mar 2008, 13:37

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

Artlav wrote:

"n:Vk:n>k"

Where V denotes universal quantifier.
That is, number n, that for any given number k is n>k.

Not sure quantifier count as ASCII chars, then

"Any k:n>k"
may do

Well they are ASCII characters, no problem there. But you haven't really given an actual number or even a description of a number.

06 Mar 2008, 13:47

asmhack

Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431

lim1/x
x~0

(limit, 9 ascii chars well 11 but the 2 are invisible Razz

the plus sign at the zero is skiped by default..)

06 Mar 2008, 14:12

revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 16390
Location: Hippocamp

asmhack wrote:

lim1/x
x~0

What is x~0? That is not any standard mathematical representation I know for limits. Do you have any supporting evidence? And what do you expect that actual value to be?

asmhack wrote:

(limit, 9 ascii chars well 11 but the 2 are invisible
the plus sign at the zero is skiped by default..)

Yes, okay cr/lf are invisible but they are still needed for the construct to work, and also they are not in the set {0x20..0x7e} so I have to disqualify on technical grounds.

06 Mar 2008, 14:30

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 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