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 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Author
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
l4m2 wrote:
So maybe I should subtract 1 to be the 2nd?
It wouldn't be second for long. There are many well defined constants with single character symbols that can beat your number. For example: maxhere-h and maxhere-G*. It could I suppose be extended to 2ndhere-h and 3rdhere-G and so on.

But it would make the list somewhat boring with one single winner and then a list of marginally smaller derived values filling up the remaining places. What it being sought after are different values of different forms. Yes, you can cheat the system but it would be more fun to think of something new.

* That would be G as in Newtonian constant of gravitation, not Graham's number.
19 Nov 2016, 10:36
l4m2

Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
So maybe I should subtract 1 to be the 2nd?
It wouldn't be second for long. There are many well defined constants with single character symbols that can beat your number. For example: maxhere-h and maxhere-G*. It could I suppose be extended to 2ndhere-h and 3rdhere-G and so on.

But it would make the list somewhat boring with one single winner and then a list of marginally smaller derived values filling up the remaining places. What it being sought after are different values of different forms. Yes, you can cheat the system but it would be more fun to think of something new.

* That would be G as in Newtonian constant of gravitation, not Graham's number.
So is it a rule that "Even if the number was told outside this topic, it means"?
19 Nov 2016, 10:55
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
The unstated "rule" here is to try to be creative and enjoy the challenge.
19 Nov 2016, 11:03
MrFox

Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 52
Location: Russia
MrFox
Maybe:
0x49,0x4e,0x46,0x49,0x4e,0x49,0x54,0x59,0x21
?
19 Nov 2016, 18:25
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
MrFox wrote:
Maybe:
0x49,0x4e,0x46,0x49,0x4e,0x49,0x54,0x59,0x21
?
That would be too long. However if you mean INFINITY! then please read further up in this topic about the trans-finite numbers.
19 Nov 2016, 23:49
l4m2

Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
Where is BBGBBGBBG where BB means busy beaver, G means Graham's number and numbers are treated as Church numberals so it is (BB)^((BB)^((BB(G)) (G)) (G)
24 Dec 2016, 15:31
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
l4m2 wrote:
Where is BBGBBGBBG where BB means busy beaver, G means Graham's number and numbers are treated as Church numberals so it is (BB)^((BB)^((BB(G)) (G)) (G)
Your notation of BBGBBGBBG does not appear to match anything that you referenced.
24 Dec 2016, 15:41
Trinitek

Joined: 06 Nov 2011
Posts: 257
Trinitek
I propose a base-n number system where n is the number of printable (i.e. produce a glyph) characters in the Unicode standard.
24 Dec 2016, 22:36
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
Trinitek wrote:
I propose a base-n number system where n is the number of printable (i.e. produce a glyph) characters in the Unicode standard.
Ignoring the rule stated in the first post about using only 7-bit ASCII: it still wouldn't give you a very large number. Even if we allowed for base 2^32 (more than the current Unicode standard has) that only gives us a maximum number of 2^(32*9)-1 ~= 4.97 x 10^86
24 Dec 2016, 22:47
Trinitek

Joined: 06 Nov 2011
Posts: 257
Trinitek
revolution wrote:
Trinitek wrote:
I propose a base-n number system where n is the number of printable (i.e. produce a glyph) characters in the Unicode standard.
Ignoring the rule stated in the first post about using only 7-bit ASCII: it still wouldn't give you a very large number. Even if we allowed for base 2^32 (more than the current Unicode standard has) that only gives us a maximum number of 2^(32*9)-1 ~= 4.97 x 10^86
Oh well. I tried.
24 Dec 2016, 23:22
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
Some famous person said: It is better to have tried and failed, than to have never tried at all.
24 Dec 2016, 23:27
YONG

Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
I think the original lines are:

"Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all."

Refer to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam_A.H.H.#Quotation

25 Dec 2016, 02:14
l4m2

Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
l4m2 wrote:
Where is BBGBBGBBG where BB means busy beaver, G means Graham's number and numbers are treated as Church numberals so it is (BB)^((BB)^((BB(G)) (G)) (G)
Your notation of BBGBBGBBG does not appear to match anything that you referenced.

BB = BB
BBG = BB(G)
BBGBB = (BB)^(BB(G))
BBGBBG = ((BB)^(BB(G)))(G)
BBGBBGBB = (BB)^(((BB)^(BB(G)))(G))
BBGBBGBBG = ((BB)^(((BB)^(BB(G)))(G)))(G)
What's wrong?
25 Dec 2016, 17:31
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
As was stated previously, just making up your own terminology is not accepted.
Quote:
BBG = BB(G)
The above appears to be something that you have just invented.

You are welcome to try and get it into mainstream usage by others and come back here to suggest again.
25 Dec 2016, 17:39
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8900
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
What is the largest number you can write in 9 characters?

this probably kinda ill-logic,

is anything that "possible to be calculated" a number?
is anything that "impossible to be calculated" a number?

i suggest, the answer of calculated number be written out, (not counted in 9 chars)
eg. using revolution example,
9+9+9+9+9
answer : 40, 2 digits // stating how many digits is enough if your number is really "big", it helps to visualize the hugeness of that number for ordinary people like me,
25 Dec 2016, 20:05
l4m2

Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
As was stated previously, just making up your own terminology is not accepted.
Quote:
BBG = BB(G)
The above appears to be something that you have just invented.

You are welcome to try and get it into mainstream usage by others and come back here to suggest again.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lambda-calculus/
Quote:

(λx[x^2 − 2·x + 5])2
You can see that arguments are just linked after the function.
26 Dec 2016, 09:19
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
Firstly λ is not part of 7-bit ASCII.

Secondly I think you are suggesting that (λx[BB(x)])G <---> BBG? If so then there is no precedence for that that I can find.
26 Dec 2016, 10:41
l4m2

Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
Firstly λ is not part of 7-bit ASCII.

Secondly I think you are suggesting that (λx[BB(x)])G <---> BBG? If so then there is no precedence for that that I can find.
BB is a function as λx. BB x
(here write wholy in lambda style)
Quote:
An eta conversion (also written η-conversion) is adding or dropping of abstraction over a function. For example, the following two values are equivalent under η-conversion:
\x -> abs x
and
abs
Converting from the first to the second would constitute an eta reduction, and moving from the second to the first would be an eta abstraction. The term 'eta conversion' can refer to the process in either direction.

Extensive use of η-reduction can lead to Pointfree programming. It is also typically used in certain compile-time optimisations.
26 Dec 2016, 11:30
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17278
revolution
Let's see if others here are happy to accept this notation for BBG. If so then we will try to see where it fits into the current list.
26 Dec 2016, 14:24
l4m2

Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Posts: 648
l4m2
revolution wrote:
Firstly λ is not part of 7-bit ASCII.
In text environment it's okay to use \ instead
26 Dec 2016, 14:53
 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 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 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