flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
![]() Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 27, 28, 29 Next |
Author |
|
Tomasz wrote: ...in the 9 characters.... 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??.... |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution wrote: You are all still not there yet, but getting warmer. ![]() 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. ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
9^^^^^^^9
|
|||
![]() |
|
9/(log0)
|
|||
![]() |
|
tom tobias wrote: why one should interpret "9 characters", as meaning nine ASCII characters? 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 "There" being the inability to write a larger number under those conditions. So far all the numbers posted can be beaten within those restrictions. |
|||
![]() |
|
asmhack wrote: 9^^^^^^^9 |
|||
![]() |
|
edfed wrote: 9/(log0) |
|||
![]() |
|
revolution wrote:
with ^ i mean up arrow |
|||
![]() |
|
asmhack wrote:
|
|||
![]() |
|
revolution wrote: So far all the numbers posted can be beaten within those restrictions. ![]() ![]() I know that revolution would come along and say, "not a number." ![]() ![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
victor wrote: unlimited (nine characters). It is unbeatable!!! |
|||
![]() |
|
revo, you didn't mentioned the A={IN,IR} ?
are numbers like pi supported ? are limits then supported ? why functions are supported ? |
|||
![]() |
|
asmhack wrote: revo, you didn't mentioned the A={IN,IR} ? asmhack wrote: are numbers like pi supported ? asmhack wrote: are limits then supported ? asmhack wrote: why functions are supported ? |
|||
![]() |
|
Final attempt: Beth two.
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|
victor wrote: Beth two Can anyone do better? |
|||
![]() |
|
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 |
|||
![]() |
|
Artlav wrote: "n:Vk:n>k" |
|||
![]() |
|
lim1/x
x~0 (limit, 9 ascii chars well 11 but the 2 are invisible ![]() the plus sign at the zero is skiped by default..) |
|||
![]() |
|
asmhack wrote: lim1/x asmhack wrote: (limit, 9 ascii chars well 11 but the 2 are invisible |
|||
![]() |
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 27, 28, 29 Next < Last Thread | Next Thread > |
Forum Rules:
|
Copyright © 1999-2019, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.