flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.
 Home   FAQ   Search   Register 
 Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
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 Post new topic Reply to topic
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
The next step is aleph_w Smile

It really should be written like this:
Image
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.
Post 06 Mar 2008, 10:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
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??....
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 5910
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
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:07
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
9^^^^^^^9
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4150
Location: https://pastebin.com/Vw7WXXf4
9/(log0)
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

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.
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

asmhack wrote:
9^^^^^^^9

Accept, but very small.
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:19
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

edfed wrote:
9/(log0)

Reject, log0 is undefined?
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:20
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431

revolution wrote:

asmhack wrote:
9^^^^^^^9

Accept, but very small.



with ^ i mean up arrow
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

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.
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
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 Very Happy

I know that revolution would come along and say, "not a number." Sad Smile
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

victor wrote:
unlimited (nine characters). It is unbeatable!!! Twisted Evil Very Happy

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

Never one to disappoint - not a number
Post 06 Mar 2008, 11:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
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 ?
Post 06 Mar 2008, 12:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

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.
Post 06 Mar 2008, 12:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
victor



Joined: 31 Dec 2005
Posts: 126
Location: Utopia
Final attempt: Beth two. Evil or Very Mad
Post 06 Mar 2008, 12:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

victor wrote:
Beth two

Accept. But already bigger numbers previously posted.

Can anyone do better?
Post 06 Mar 2008, 12:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
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
Post 06 Mar 2008, 13:37
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

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.
Post 06 Mar 2008, 13:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
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..)
Post 06 Mar 2008, 14:12
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 15237
Location: 1I/ʻOumuamua

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 Razz
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.
Post 06 Mar 2008, 14:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001-2005 phpBB Group.

Main index   Download   Documentation   Examples   Message board
Copyright © 2004-2016, Tomasz Grysztar.