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 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 27, 28, 29 Next 
Author 

bitRAKE
...but countable sets are only Aleph0.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph0.html "the notation of ordinal numbers can be a bit counterintuitive" 

07 Mar 2008, 23:26 

bitRAKE
I know that series  should be on a google search, too. Would you like a generative program  should be easy in x86  wonder how small I can make it?


08 Mar 2008, 00:26 

edfed
me too.
i wonder the time i'll spend to make it more than it's size. graphics? text? win32? 

08 Mar 2008, 00:30 

bitRAKE
Can't even be 3 3's  certainly not 4. I tried to upload 1000: but the board wouldn't let me.


08 Mar 2008, 01:14 

revolution
edfed: That chain has nothing to do with this puzzle.


08 Mar 2008, 01:21 

revolution
r22 wrote: [0,INF) 

08 Mar 2008, 01:22 

victor
Let k be the current top entry under the "Purely Mathematical" section of revolution's list.
k is an infinite cardinal. By König's theorem, the gimel function ] has the property ](k) > k for all infinite cardinals k. So, here is my winning shot: ](k) . Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimel_function . 

08 Mar 2008, 01:55 

revolution
victor wrote: Let k be the current top entry under the "Purely Mathematical" section of revolution's list. BTW, the current list: Code: Finites: 5. 9$$$$$$$$ bitRAKE 4. 9($^9$$$) Tomasz Grysztar 3. G($^G$$$) Tomasz Grysztar (belatedly accepted) 2. BB(BB(9)) Tomasz Grysztar 1. (BB^9)(9) Tomasz Grysztar (belatedly accepted) Transfinites: 5. AlephZ$$ MHajduk 4. BethZ$$$ bitRAKE 3. beth_w^w Tomasz Grysztar 2. Beth_EEE0 MHajduk 1. Beth EEEw revolution (shamelessly ripped from MHajduk's Beth_EEE0) 

08 Mar 2008, 02:14 

bitRAKE
](Tav)
God only knows, lol. 

08 Mar 2008, 02:47 

revolution
](Dolly Parton) Now that is really big.


08 Mar 2008, 02:50 

revolution
bitRAKE wrote: ](Tav) 

08 Mar 2008, 03:00 

sinsi
*
(because a wildcard matches everything) 

08 Mar 2008, 03:35 

revolution
sinsi wrote: * 

08 Mar 2008, 03:43 

victor
Under the "Finites" section:
Since revolution accepts base36, (BB^Z)(Z) is obviously much bigger than (BB^9)(9). Under the "Transfinites" section: Since revolution does not accept my "alwayswin" entry, I would argue the following. The written forms, "Beth xxxx", are, indeed, pronunciation of the Beth numbers. So, under the 9character limit, the largest, yet "decent", entry is "Beth ten". Entries like "Beth EEEw" should be decarded! (Besides, I would question whether or not the construct "EEEw" is generally accepted!) 

08 Mar 2008, 05:20 

revolution
victor wrote: (BB^Z)(Z) victor wrote: Beth ten victor wrote: I would question whether or not the construct "EEEw" is generally accepted! Can anyone do any better? 

08 Mar 2008, 06:10 

tom tobias
victor wrote: ...the gimel function ] has the property ](k) > k for all infinite cardinals k. ... (1) Has Dean's criticism of Goedel's incompleteness theorem been accepted by the broader mathematics community? http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/logic/930biggestmathematicsfraudhistory.html (2) To what extent, if any, does this "gimel" function depend upon Goedel's earlier (1947) articulation of the same idea? http://books.google.com/books?id=lgDGTYNcOY4C&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=gimel+godel&source=web&ots=SC8xQKO0He&sig=d2gioeuMgt2k6UroK7a3enp2wQ&hl=en (3) Is there any relationship between Goedel's theorem (1931) and the "gimel" function of Bukovsky and Hechler? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem http://www.logique.jussieu.fr/~boban/pdf/Pcf.pdf 

08 Mar 2008, 09:59 

Tomasz Grysztar
tom tobias wrote: (1) Has Dean's criticism of Goedel's incompleteness theorem been accepted by the broader mathematics community? It would be an interesting readin for me if it was a criticism on the mathematical grounds, however this whole thing is more similar to some kind of religious crusade than to a real justified mathematical reasoning. And even philosophically speaking, some of his statements are way too confident. For example: Quote: If the logic he uses is not consistent then he cannot make a proof that is consistent. Why is it "he cannot"? He may be just using a part of his logic that is unflawed to make some proof, and thus this proof would be completely consistent. 

08 Mar 2008, 11:15 

Borsuc
Z^(1/dx)!


08 Mar 2008, 12:42 

MHajduk
victor wrote: Entries like "Beth EEEw" should be decarded! (Besides, I would question whether or not the construct "EEEw" is generally accepted!) 

08 Mar 2008, 12:43 

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 27, 28, 29 Next < Last Thread  Next Thread > 
Forum Rules:

Copyright © 19992020, Tomasz Grysztar.
Powered by rwasa.