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 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
999999...
can't be any larger than that, at least according to my spiritual guru in Tibet. Not a NAN, not an infinity, not even an approximation. It goes everywhere forward. Valid in both human and numerical language. I win?
Post 10 Dec 2015, 06:32
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tthsqe



Joined: 20 May 2009
Posts: 724
tthsqe
fasmnewbie, the number you posted, ...999, is the same as -1 to me, hence not very big. Smile
Post 10 Dec 2015, 07:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
tthsqe wrote:
fasmnewbie, the number you posted, ...999, is the same as -1 to me, hence not very big. Smile
Yours is 6 digits/characters and spelled backward (close-ended). You got it wrong buddy. Nice try xD
Post 10 Dec 2015, 07:32
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: 17275
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
fasmnewbie wrote:
999999...
can't be any larger than that, at least according to my spiritual guru in Tibet. Not a NAN, not an infinity, not even an approximation. It goes everywhere forward. Valid in both human and numerical language. I win?
It has been a while since I've read through this thread but IIRC numbers that are not specific (i.e. infinitely repeating or some other non-finite value) belong in the transfinites section (in which case it is much smaller) and are rejected for the finites section because of being not finite.
Post 10 Dec 2015, 07:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
revolution wrote:
fasmnewbie wrote:
999999...
can't be any larger than that, at least according to my spiritual guru in Tibet. Not a NAN, not an infinity, not even an approximation. It goes everywhere forward. Valid in both human and numerical language. I win?
It has been a while since I've read through this thread but IIRC numbers that are not specific (i.e. infinitely repeating or some other non-finite value) belong in the transfinites section (in which case it is much smaller) and are rejected for the finites section because of being not finite.


It's not "not finite"... it says "go on and on and on"... it's not the same thing. You just can't beat my guru. He knows spiritual stuff xD
Post 10 Dec 2015, 07:46
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: 17275
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
fasmnewbie wrote:
It's not "not finite"... it says "go on and on and on"... it's not the same thing. You just can't beat my guru. He knows spiritual stuff xD
Hmm, your definition ... oops, I mean, your guru's definition of "finite" must be very different from the one that the rest of the world uses. Wink

And of course spiritual stuff is exactly precisely the same thing as mathematics stuff. How could it not be?
Post 10 Dec 2015, 07:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
fasmnewbie



Joined: 01 Mar 2011
Posts: 553
fasmnewbie
revolution wrote:
fasmnewbie wrote:
It's not "not finite"... it says "go on and on and on"... it's not the same thing. You just can't beat my guru. He knows spiritual stuff xD
Hmm, your definition ... oops, I mean, your guru's definition of "finite" must be very different from the one that the rest of the world uses. Wink

And of course spiritual stuff is exactly precisely the same thing as mathematics stuff. How could it not be?


It's called "tibetan style". Just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong. xD

Is PI (3.141592) a finite or infinite number? Of course it's a finite number but it is also a "go on and on and on" number. See not the same thing. Pay me $50 and I can set u up a meeting with my guru. Maybe u can learn a thing or two about this? hihihi xD
Post 10 Dec 2015, 08:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l4m2



Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
Is there any number larger than CountSets ?
I don't understand the question. What is "CountSets"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
and CountSets is the number of sets
Post 10 Dec 2015, 11:21
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17275
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
fasmnewbie wrote:
It's called "tibetan style". Just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong. xD
I didn't say it was wrong, just different. And different enough that it won't fit with the more established definition which is being used here. So, not accept. Smile
Post 10 Dec 2015, 13:18
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: 17275
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
l4m2 wrote:
revolution wrote:
I don't understand the question. What is "CountSets"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
and CountSets is the number of sets
But "CountSets" doesn't have a defined meaning that I am aware of. Count<Anything> is not an established mathematical function AFAICT.
Post 10 Dec 2015, 13:21
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
l4m2 wrote:
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
Is there any number larger than CountSets ?
I don't understand the question. What is "CountSets"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
and CountSets is the number of sets
There can't be a number that is the count of all sets. It's a paradox. For a cardinal number to exist, there has to be a set with that cardinality. So for such a number to exist, there would have to be a set of all sets. There can be no such set. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/162/why-is-the-set-of-all-sets-a-paradox

There are lots of fun paradoxes like this in set theory. Another one is that there can't be a set of all ordinal numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burali-Forti_paradox
Post 10 Dec 2015, 15:36
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
l4m2



Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
Tyler wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
Is there any number larger than CountSets ?
I don't understand the question. What is "CountSets"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
and CountSets is the number of sets
There can't be a number that is the count of all sets. It's a paradox. For a cardinal number to exist, there has to be a set with that cardinality. So for such a number to exist, there would have to be a set of all sets. There can be no such set. http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/162/why-is-the-set-of-all-sets-a-paradox

There are lots of fun paradoxes like this in set theory. Another one is that there can't be a set of all ordinal numbers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burali-Forti_paradox
Comparation doesn't affect. That {x|x doesn't belong to x} doesn't make the number change
Post 10 Dec 2015, 16:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tyler



Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Posts: 1216
Location: NC, USA
Tyler
l4m2 wrote:
Comparation doesn't affect. That {x|x doesn't belong to x} doesn't make the number change
I didn't say anything about Bertrand's set. I was referring to the set of all sets. These are two different things, though both of them are paradoxical.
Post 11 Dec 2015, 01:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17275
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
l4m2 wrote:
Is there any number larger than CountSets ?
Based upon the discussion about its paradoxical nature and the lack of accepted mathematical terminology: Not accept.
Post 11 Dec 2015, 02:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l4m2



Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
Is there any number larger than CountSets ?
Based upon the discussion about its paradoxical nature and the lack of accepted mathematical terminology: Not accept.
Not for acceptation but I don't think it a good idea that you reject an idea juse because u cant think about it
Post 16 Dec 2015, 15:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17275
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
l4m2 wrote:
Not for acceptation but I don't think it a good idea that you reject an idea juse because u cant think about it
I think you misunderstand this topic. Sad
Post 17 Dec 2015, 03:16
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l4m2



Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
maxhere+9
This was already tried in a variant form by Goplat. And it was subsequently shown to be unworkable and thus disallowed.

However, you are welcome to try again.
So what about Maxhere+0? It won't lead to conflict?
Post 19 Nov 2016, 09:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17275
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
l4m2 wrote:
So what about Maxhere+0? It won't lead to conflict?
I guess there is no conflict. But there is also nothing added, no new value is being defined.
Post 19 Nov 2016, 10:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
l4m2



Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
So what about Maxhere+0? It won't lead to conflict?
I guess there is no conflict. But there is also nothing added, no new value is being defined.
So maybe I should subtract 1 to be the 2nd?
Post 19 Nov 2016, 10:25
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
l4m2



Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
sumbeforI (Sum before me)
No conflict either but the later it's submitted the larger it is so its being 1st can't keep
Post 19 Nov 2016, 10:28
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23 ... 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.

Powered by rwasa.