flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

 Index > Heap > What is the best pie you can get with 9 digits? Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Author
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
asmhack wrote:
privalov what is the y for BB(x) ?? just courius..
BB(x) by itself is normally taken to mean for a two symbol Turing Machine, so y=2.
06 Mar 2008, 18:54
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
Artlav wrote:
revolution wrote:
Alright, I may have misunderstood, but it seems you are trying to say that what ever number I can write there is always a larger number. Is that correct?
Yes, in quantification notation
n: ∀k n>k
means "Number n: for any number k n>k."
Okay, so the inverted A is not ASCII and of course it is not a specific number either. Not accept.
06 Mar 2008, 18:56
bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2937
Location: vpcmipstrm
bitRAKE
epsilon-0

epsilon-Z\$

_________________
06 Mar 2008, 19:01
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
bitRAKE wrote:
epsilon-0
epsilon-0 == Aleph-0
bitRAKE wrote:
epsilon-Z\$
10 Characters!
06 Mar 2008, 19:07
bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2937
Location: vpcmipstrm
bitRAKE
revolution wrote:
bitRAKE wrote:
epsilon-0
epsilon-0 == Aleph-0
How so?

epsilon-Z, then

_________________
06 Mar 2008, 19:11
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
bitRAKE wrote:
revolution wrote:
bitRAKE wrote:
epsilon-0
epsilon-0 == Aleph-0
How so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinal_number#Initial_ordinal_of_a_cardinal
06 Mar 2008, 19:14
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
bitRAKE wrote:
epsilon-Z
Accept.

New list:
Code:
```Purely mathematical:
5.    epsilon-Z       bitRAKE
4.   Aleph-9\$\$       Tomasz Grysztar
3.   Aleph-F\$\$       MHajduk
2.   Aleph-Z\$\$       MHajduk
1.   Beth-Z\$\$\$       bitRAKE    ```
06 Mar 2008, 19:16
Tomasz Grysztar

Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7751
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
asmhack wrote:
it is just set of numbers..
how a number can include other numbers.. ?

When you use the set theory to define numbers, even the natural numbers are the sets where each number contains all the numbers that are smaller than it.

The definition goes this way:
0={} (empty set)
1={0}={{}}
2={0,1}={{},{{}}}
3={0,1,2}=...
and so on.

The problem here is that revolution didn't say what kind of numbers are allowed.

And this is a more serious problem that you may think, because there are some kinds of numbers that are not comparable with natural number, have no linear order at all, etc.

For example if I chose to mention here some infinite 2-adic number, you wouldn't be able to tell whether this number is bigger or smaller than any of the already mentioned, because p-adic numbers have no such order structure that would allow that.

Even allowing both ordinal numbers and cardinal numbers here is already an abuse, because there are usually many ordinal numbers which have the same cardinality, but which are smaller or larger compared to each other.
06 Mar 2008, 20:17
r22

Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
Code:
```do{X+=9;}
```

I'm sure some compiler would accept that and initialize X as a variable for me.
06 Mar 2008, 20:59
tom tobias

Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
tomasz wrote:

revolution didn't say what kind of numbers are allowed.

revolution wrote:

1. Beth-Z\$\$\$ bitRAKE

(2^c)!^c!
where "Beth two" i.e. second letter in hebrew alphabet, corresponds to 2^c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_number
I foolishly assume that "c" here corresponds to the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum.
I have no idea why one employs hebrew characters for anything, but I would prefer any other culture's alphabet to appear on the FASM forum. I still have no idea why one confounds ascii characters with numeric representations.
06 Mar 2008, 21:02
r22

Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
Code:
```LEN(PI)
```

The length of an irrational number FTW and only 7 ascii characters.
06 Mar 2008, 21:16
edfed

Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
if you want the bigger number, the ultime, the enormous, the king...
it is 1/0
because 1 is only one, like one tomato, but it is ONE something.. it can be google, or 10^10000000000000000000000000, as you want and zero is the +0, the one defined by thegreybeast before. and then, it is the bigger irrational nuber of the world, of the creation, of the universe.

1/0 is more than infinite.
06 Mar 2008, 23:02
bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2937
Location: vpcmipstrm
bitRAKE
tom tobias wrote:
I foolishly assume that "c" here corresponds to the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum.
it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum (not that I have a clue - much of this math is beyond my study)

w_1^CK

Maybe I should just jump to |w_Z^CK|\$ as the superfactorial of the size of the Zth "smallest ordinal which cannot in any way be represented by a computable function". It's way short of infinity, lol.

_________________
06 Mar 2008, 23:38
asmhack

Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
asmhack wrote:
it is just set of numbers..
how a number can include other numbers.. ?

When you use the set theory to define numbers, even the natural numbers are the sets where each number contains all the numbers that are smaller than it.

The definition goes this way:
0={} (empty set)
1={0}={{}}
2={0,1}={{},{{}}}
3={0,1,2}=...
and so on.

you can't just say that for example is a number..
it is just the set of natural numbers.. [1,2,3,...)
N* = [1,2,3,...) wrong
N* ∈ [1,2,3,...) correct
07 Mar 2008, 01:03
bitRAKE

Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2937
Location: vpcmipstrm
bitRAKE
Beth-Z\$^Z

Z\$^Beth-Z

_________________
07 Mar 2008, 01:11
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
Okay folks, you now have two of the three concepts needed and half of the third concept. And you have now 8/9 of the ASCII needed.

I have also made a new number for the new second part of the non-Aleph section. MUCH bigger than the current leader in that section.

All of the tries posted above do not make it into the top5. You all seem to be trying smaller numbers!
07 Mar 2008, 02:54
r22

Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
SUM[n>0]n

Summation of n for all values of n greater than 0.
07 Mar 2008, 03:25
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
r22 wrote:
SUM[n>0]n
And the value would be ∞? I think sums of infinite sequences give infinite results, and ∞ is not a number.
07 Mar 2008, 03:52
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
bitRAKE wrote:
Beth-Z\$^Z
Oops, I missed this one earlier, a new number 5.
07 Mar 2008, 03:53
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17467
revolution
edfed wrote:
1/0 is more than infinite.
You seem to have a fascination with undefined values. 1/0 is not defined, get over it.
07 Mar 2008, 03:56
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

 Jump to: Select a forum Official----------------AssemblyPeripheria General----------------MainDOSWindowsLinuxUnixMenuetOS Specific----------------MacroinstructionsCompiler InternalsIDE DevelopmentOS ConstructionNon-x86 architecturesHigh Level LanguagesProgramming Language DesignProjects and IdeasExamples and Tutorials Other----------------FeedbackHeapTest Area
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 27, 28, 29  Next

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