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 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7725
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote:
Okay, you're describing a bit-reflected version of standard integer binary. But even a non-bit-reflected version still has -1 as the "greatest" element.

It's not bit-reflected, because you cannot 'reflect' it - it has the beginning, but doesn't have the end, so you cannot start 'from the other side', as there is no 'other side'. That's why p-adic numbers have no natural order.

revolution wrote:

Can you point out if I have made a mistake in this puzzle?

Specifically have I made a comparison error in the two lists? Maybe comparing things that can't be compared? Or allowing something that makes no sense?

That's a bit tricky. You see, you can compare ordinal with cardinal, by comparing the cardinality of that ordinal with actual cardinal. However this leads to some inconsistencies.
For example omega and omega^2, and even epsilon_0 all have the cardinality of aleph_0. So you have something like:

aleph_0 "=" omega < omega^2 < epsilon_0 "=" aleph_0
Post 07 Mar 2008, 10:50
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: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
It would be a shame to have to disallow all the Aleph and Beth type answers, they were quite fun.

But if it means better consistency then perhaps it is best to eliminate that part and shift focus to the more "normal" numbers with the "(BB^9)(9)" thing currently leading.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 10:59
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7725
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote:
But if it means better consistency then perhaps it is best to eliminate that part and shift focus to the more "normal" numbers with the "(BB^9)(9)" thing currently leading.

Aleph and beth are quite OK themselves, if only we choose to concentrate on cardinals only.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 11:25
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: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Okay folks, cardinals are in, bishops are out, oops, I mean ordinals are out.

There is still a lot of room for improvement in the current numbers!
Post 07 Mar 2008, 11:41
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7725
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote:
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

OK, so let's go for beth_w^w now.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 12:06
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
beth_w^w$

blatantly ripped off from the post above.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 12:54
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7725
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
r22 wrote:
beth_w^w$

blatantly ripped off from the post above.

You'd need to define the $ operator for transfinite ordinals first.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 13:11
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
SUMn<INFz - illegible

n,0<n<INF - this would be a set not a number

|n|,n!=INF - count of the set of all numbers not infinitiy DOH! 10 chars

I've got nothin'
Post 07 Mar 2008, 13:18
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
r22



Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 805
r22
re: Tomasz

beth_w^9w ?
Post 07 Mar 2008, 13:20
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
revolution wrote:
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

OK, so let's go for beth_w^w now.
Hey, no fair, you used an ordinal. :sulk:
Post 07 Mar 2008, 13:44
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
or you are pro at maths.. or i am too dumb or outdated.. Confused

CRAP-X$$$
Post 07 Mar 2008, 13:47
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
asmhack wrote:
CRAP-X$$$
Accept if you can give the value.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 13:58
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar



Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7725
Location: Kraków, Poland
Tomasz Grysztar
revolution wrote:
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
OK, so let's go for beth_w^w now.
Hey, no fair, you used an ordinal. :sulk:

w^w is an ordinal, but beth_w^w is a cardinal. Aleph and beth take ordinals as indexes, but themselves they are cardinals.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
pfff Razz
ok...
it's the biggest number in the galaxy.. it can't feet in 3D dimension even..
ps: don't search for that in wiki.. it's undocumented Cool
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:18
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Tomasz Grysztar wrote:
w^w is an ordinal, but beth_w^w is a cardinal. Aleph and beth take ordinals as indexes, but themselves they are cardinals.
Alright, I accept.

That totally blows away the answer I had, now I will have to rethink and see if I can beat ya Wink.

So we have a new number 1.
Code:
Purely mathematical:
5.      Aleph-9$$       Tomasz Grysztar
4.   Aleph-F$$       MHajduk
3.   Aleph-Z$$       MHajduk
2.   Beth-Z$$$       bitRAKE
1.   beth_w^w        Tomasz Grysztar    


Can anyone do any better?
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:21
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: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
asmhack wrote:
it's undocumented
undocumented = unacceptable. If you can provide independent supporting documents and it's value then I accept.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:24
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
and what is the value of ALEPH ??? aleph + 1 = ???
see ? it's not a number... it is a SET of numbers
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17287
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
I looked up your proposed submission and found this, does it have a value? Seems quite valueless to me.
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:27
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmhack



Joined: 01 Feb 2008
Posts: 431
asmhack
|-R-R|
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bitRAKE



Joined: 21 Jul 2003
Posts: 2915
Location: [RSP+8*5]
bitRAKE
There appears to be a character not used in any solution, and a concept not used in any submission thus far. I'm really at a loss as to what you have in mind. Nor can I really connect with the magnitude of the numbers currently represented. Not that any of that has swayed my curiosity in the slightest.

_________________
¯\(°_o)/¯ unlicense.org
Post 07 Mar 2008, 14:57
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 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 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


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.