Finding Even Larger Numbers

Рет қаралды 142,033

CodeParade

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 497

@user-sl6gn1ss8p 2 ай бұрын

The googology community is up in arms for receiving a measly "huge" thanks

@BooLightning 2 ай бұрын

🤣

@zyansheep 2 ай бұрын

huge could semantically mean anything from 2 to loader's number lol

@3Black.1Red 2 ай бұрын

“A googological thanks to the googology community.”

@jblen 2 ай бұрын

@@zyansheepI don't know if anyone would connote 2 with being 'huge', but it's hard to say where the line should really be.

@alazarbisrat1978 2 ай бұрын

@@jblen what if it's a p-value

@nodrance 2 ай бұрын

If anyone is confused why busy beaver numbers don't work: It's basically the same as saying "the largest number that can fit in a text message is the largest number that can fit in a text message"

@capsey_ 2 ай бұрын

r/TechnicallyTheTruth

@asagiai4965 2 ай бұрын

Almost correct but wrong explanation. The reason bb can be use is because you don't know. By that I mean it is uncomputable. Or you don't know what number it is. And it can also change

@Galinaceo0 2 ай бұрын

It's not the same, what are you talking about? You can define busy beaver numbers, you just can't prove what they are except for very small inputs.

@mateobaca628 2 ай бұрын

@@nodrance for what I know there are numbers that fall more in the philosophical area than in the Maths one. That concept of the “largest numbers that fits” sometimes feels more logical but for another science. That’s why Rayo (eho is a philosopher) created his own big number

@OneShot_cest_mieux 2 ай бұрын

No, they are not written with human languages but in math symboles, so this paradox does not exist.

@JL2579 2 ай бұрын

I don't think I have ever watched a KZbin video where I understood so little of it . The number of terms and concepts to look up recursively to understand these numbers in detail is almost as large as the numbers themselves

@vcprado 2 ай бұрын

I feel you, I started to doubt if I really am fluent in english watching this

@megadeth116 2 ай бұрын

I need 2 hours video of explainging what actually these are

@ExtraterrestrialIntelligence 2 ай бұрын

but at least its finite and computable

@neoieo5832 2 ай бұрын

@@megadeth116 orbital nebula's series exists.

@jblen 2 ай бұрын

New biggest number - the recursive number of steps required to understand the previous biggest number

@cheeseburgermonkey7104 2 ай бұрын

Never have I realized how difficult googology is to find your way around in, especially in deeper parts like this I mean, the jargon in this video is insane

@Sgrunterundt 2 ай бұрын

You say huge thanks, but what class of huge are you talking about?

@boldCactuslad 2 ай бұрын

recursively: the smallest class of huge which is larger than the class of huge you thought it was, minus one

@vari6989 2 ай бұрын

gap ordinal level

@jotasietesiete4397 2 ай бұрын

Loader's number mentioned. I forgive part 1 now. Man, this video is inspiring me to get back into googology

@JohnTromp 2 ай бұрын

At the time part 1 was made, Loader hadn't be made to fit in a tweet yet...

@thebaddexample 2 ай бұрын

Damn, changed my mind: Gotta be at least 5

@WaffleAbuser 2 ай бұрын

5+1 Checkmate atheists

@BooLightning 2 ай бұрын

@@WaffleAbuser lol

@Yesytsucks 2 ай бұрын

@@WaffleAbuserthats not a jumber, that's a summ, obviously. Nothing's larger than 5

@spaceguy20_12 2 ай бұрын

that’s underestimation, it’s gotta be atleast 9

@kingofnumbers7660 2 ай бұрын

@@spaceguy20_12I’d say that it’s at least 11, I don’t know really.

@U.Inferno 2 ай бұрын

Alright so from what I can gauge number classes aren't necessarily literal numbers with predefined digits. They're more comparable to Big O Notation where you simply identify what part dominates as n approaches infinity. For example, if you ever told a CompScientist "O(n^2 + 1) is greater than O(n^2)" you'd be laughed at because the rate at which O(n^2) grows makes that +1 so irrelevant there's no reason in specifying.* It's why the notation is rather simple to begin with. If you have a growth rate of a polynomial with a number of degrees up to 1000, degrees 0-999 are discarded. And even that is dwarved by any exponential function with a base larger than 1. The only difference is we've transcended shit like exponential, factorial, and O(n^n)--and that last one is already pushing it because any program with that bad of Big O is either so bad to never be even used, or pumped full of tiny optimizations that try to withstand the inevitable rampant growth for just long enough to get something useful. *To those who don't quite get what I mean, lets start simple. n^2 vs n^2+1 when n = 2 is 4 and 5. That +1 provides a 25% increase, which is pretty significant. However, n = 3 is 9 vs 10, which only ~11%. As n grows, that percentage increase shrinks to insignificance. So when it comes to Big O notation, we don't really give a shit about +1. This is true for any inequal growth. for example n^3 vs n^3 + n^2 are considered equivalent under this notation because when n = 2, you get 8 vs 12. Although that's a 50 percent increase, n = 3 gives 27 vs 36 which is only a 33% increase. When n = 10 that difference is only a 10% increase. Every time you double n, the percentage increase is half. n = 20 is +5%. n = 40 is +2.5%. n = 80 is +1.25%. et cetera. So you quite literally disregard everything that's not the leading value because it's basically a diminishing return.

@CodeParade 2 ай бұрын

Yes, that's exactly right! Big O is the same concept in computer science.

@nickcunningham6344 2 ай бұрын

I was thinking the same thing!

@davelolable 24 күн бұрын

While this is a good simplification, proof theory (which is essentially what "looking for the biggest number" eventually (de)volves into) is actually much deeper. A lot of times, new machinery needs to be developed before a new proof system can be pushed to its limits, e.g. types added to the λ-calculus, making the resulting system much more powerful, proofs much more expressive, (and "the maximum number or proofs in the system," which is often times the "big number" you're looking for, much bigger) but also often throwing a wrench into things (type resolution is not recursively-enumerable, for example). Big-O notation is just straight up asymptotic behavior, making it much more boring by comparison :)

@bunsenn5064 2 күн бұрын

It really is about the degree of operation. Different degrees of algorithmic operation grow at such different rates that too large of a gap between those operations defeats the whole purpose of lesser ones.

@kisaragi-hiu 2 ай бұрын

Reading about Graham's Number and other large numbers in the past made me appreciate how you never get close to infinity, even if sometimes it can feel like a big number could just be equated to infinity. Climbing the ladder in defining incredibly large numbers while satisfying some constraints is still fun though.

@CelticB 2 ай бұрын

It has become increasingly clear why you were able to pull off developing 4 dimensional games

@ziizion4074 2 ай бұрын

I failed maths in high school, am studying linguistics, where I don’t need any maths and yet I find this super fascinating

@thepiratepeter4630 10 күн бұрын

I think the confusion about BB arises from the fact that your stated objective is "the largest number for which a generating algorithm fits in a SMS", but what you are presenting is actually "the largest number for which I was able to find a generating algorithm that fits in a SMS"

@CaesarsSalad 2 ай бұрын

Mentioning that the busy beaver numbers are difficult to compute because they are so large and that we will probably never know the value of BB(6) is a red herring. These numbers are all too large for anything anyway. The qualitatively different property that the busy beaver sequence has is that it is uncomputable and the rest doesn't matter.

@danger_1189 Ай бұрын

the problem with the busy beavers is just that theyre not something with a function, theyre just a placeholder for the idea of a biggest possible number

@CaesarsSalad Ай бұрын

@@danger_1189 What? It's a well defined function from N to N.

@irlporygon-z6929 Ай бұрын

I mean. I don't know about "red herring". Yes, the relevant fact about BB that makes it unuseful for this challenge is that it's an uncomputable function, but it's an interesting observation, and I somehow don't think this video is concerned with practical significance when the final result is a compressed lambda calculus representation of a function that iterates over every program in the strongly normalizing calculus of constructions with length less than that function's input. I didn't know that the value of BB(5) actually got proved in just this year, last time I saw references to the results for that value they were only speculated to be optimal. To me that's interesting information.

@omegastar2508 2 ай бұрын

6:46 My mind passed that point a while ago

@kisaragi-hiu 2 ай бұрын

2:40 Oh… (a) that actually makes the challenge meaningful now, and (b) I wish more people mentioned this

@Pizhdak 2 ай бұрын

Yea, i also just heard of it for the first time, although i had a guess it is so, because otherwise you could always say +1

@Pizhdak 2 ай бұрын

I wonder what the strict definition of a class is though

@JulianBliss 2 ай бұрын

Damn, every single time I am researching something on the cusp of new Computer Science, John Tromp is always there

@chickendoodle32 10 күн бұрын

Matt Turk’s long lost broþer

@sesemuller4086 2 ай бұрын

5:58 PATCAIL! Wow, I only know so much about large number because I played their games, nice to see them come up here

@DEMEMZEA 2 ай бұрын

Yeah, patcail's certainly a name

@karamboubou8579 2 ай бұрын

i literally watched this while waiting on an ordinal markup timewall lol (grinding singularity levels)

@AdrianLee-w7l 14 күн бұрын

Yeah, I used to, and still play the games of Patcail

@YandiBanyu 2 ай бұрын

WAIT, THE 5 STATE BUSY BEAVER IS OUT NOW?!

@legendgames128 2 ай бұрын

Yep, the value shown in this video is the maximum number of steps (as opposed to the maximum number of 1s possible)

@Ganerrr 2 ай бұрын

Noncomputable ≠ not well defined, BB(n) is just a function from ℕ→ℕ, it's just impossible to observe in finite time

@akeem2983 2 ай бұрын

Isn't the BB(n) function in this case similar to a hypothetical MLC(n) function that is "the biggest number that can be written in lambda calculus using n symbols"?

@Ganerrr 2 ай бұрын

@@akeem2983 yes as untyped lambda calculus ≅ turing machines, however it's still a well defined function

@johngalmann9579 2 ай бұрын

I mean, that becomes very philosophical very quickly. It's totally possible that it's impossible to prove exactly what value of BB(n) for some n. So then you're basically at a tree falling in the forest

@Ganerrr 2 ай бұрын

@@johngalmann9579 I mean, we can trivially prove the value does exist. It's a value hand-picked by God himself but still exists

@CodeParade 23 күн бұрын

To clarify, there is no general algorithm that can generate BB(n) for a given n, regardless of computation time, even infinite. If you want to treat it like a computable function, you need to use something called an "Oracle Machine" which can sweep the halting problem under the rug. And as far as proofs, eventually there will reach an n such that BB(n) is not provable in ZFC, or in any specific proof system you choose there will eventually be a value of n where it can no longer be proved. So the concept may be well-defined, but the outputs are debatable.

@lumi2030 2 ай бұрын

1:41 IT WAS PROVEN???

@zackbuildit88 2 ай бұрын

Yeah it's weird there wasn't more of a fanfare

@FranticErrors 2 ай бұрын

a couple weeks ago yeah

@Traay0 2 ай бұрын

Yes it just was

@Pizhdak 2 ай бұрын

Correct me if im wrong, but wouldn't one have to somehow analytically prove that a shit ton of Turing machines never halt to then compute the BB? Or have they developed some crazy new methods?

@lumi2030 2 ай бұрын

@@Pizhdak they've programmed deciders which looked for patterns in the behavior of 5-state turing machines, and ruled out any machines running for more than 47176870 steps as non-terminating

@eryqeryq 2 ай бұрын

Rayo's Number is kinda cringey because of the arbitrary use of a googol as the parameter. I wonder if there's a more natural big number to use for this kind of construction.

@shophaune2298 2 ай бұрын

The only big number that'd seem "natural" would be ~10^82, the estimated number of subatomic particles in the universe.

@nocktv6559 2 ай бұрын

@@shophaune2298 10^185 Planck Volume in the observable Universe

@janisir4529 29 күн бұрын

@@shophaune2298what an arbitrary choice to make

@X3m.Gaming 2 ай бұрын

its like im watching a really dumb powerscaling video. also always remember... all of these numbers are closer to 0 than to ∞

@itsphoenixingtime 8 күн бұрын

getting angry stares after saying that some person has a power level of Loader's Number

@mateobaca628 2 ай бұрын

Glad that my comment inquiry regarding BMS in the first video was considered. Great vid

@Flairis Ай бұрын

This is my favorite type of videos. please keep it coming!!

@headcrab4 2 ай бұрын

Can't wait till we see Code Parade's new "orders of orders of magnitude" game haha.

@AzertyWasTaken 2 ай бұрын

BB(n) and some faster-growing functions can be defined using a program but it require solving the halting problem to be computed, which is impossible.

@Melissanoma 2 ай бұрын

still no mention of unary I see. The true largest number that can fit in 140 characters (given the stipulation that it must be computable without outside information) is 140, expressed like this: ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

@redpepper74 2 ай бұрын

A truly stunning result, can’t believe he never brought this up

@cewla3348 2 ай бұрын

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII*IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII is bigger, and that doesn't even fit in the max

@mattgsm 2 ай бұрын

And I'd say that by rule 3 if the Part 1 video, this is the most basic

@Syuvinya 2 ай бұрын

@@cewla3348you must define * first

@ishkanark6725 2 ай бұрын

@@Syuvinya You must define | first.

@benthomason3307 2 ай бұрын

Hearing that your son is taking freaking Brilliant courses was quite the reality check for me, as in my mind he's always been the adorable toddler climbing the DIY rockwall. 😏

@Thespian1987 2 ай бұрын

Wake up babe new code parade vid just dropped

@burnttoast385 2 ай бұрын

Yay

@ThatobjectArtist 2 ай бұрын

from said Googology and Apeirology community. it's really cool to see our community get recognised by such a number of people :3

@vari6989 2 ай бұрын

@ThatobjectArtist 2 ай бұрын

@@vari6989 yess :3

@007Rincewind 2 ай бұрын

After I have studied Googology for a few months I could actualy follow your video and also it help me understand a lot of things in the end.

@Arras_maniac 24 күн бұрын

Fun fact the BB for busy beaver actually stands for busy Beaver which is pretty cool and also (TREE(∑(⁹9!↑↑↑↑⁹9!↑↑↑↑⁹9!))) is a pretty big number.

@sanoysgamingchannel 2 ай бұрын

this is now the thrid different ruleset i have heared about the hydra game, there goes my weekend trying different trees and writing code to solve them

@JamesMcCullough-lu9gf 2 ай бұрын

ad ends at 3:44

@BetterCaulipowerSall-vq9yn 2 ай бұрын

Uhhhhhh 4 that sounds pretty big

@BetterCaulipowerSall-vq9yn 2 ай бұрын

WAIT I JUST THOUGHT OF 40

@chnhakk 2 ай бұрын

@@BetterCaulipowerSall-vq9yn what about 41 😎

@BetterCaulipowerSall-vq9yn 2 ай бұрын

@@chnhakk what the hell are you talking about

@DS-tv2fi 2 ай бұрын

@@BetterCaulipowerSall-vq9ynIDK, I’ve been hearing pretty good things about this “45” number…

@slamopfpnoobneverunsub5362 2 ай бұрын

What about 54@@chnhakk

@ДаниилИмани 2 ай бұрын

everyone is gangsta until the notation for representing ordinals changes

@andermium 2 ай бұрын

5:20 isn't stackoverflow, it's code golf! That's exactly what you're doing too! Code golf is such a niche but awesome game

@splicelord1968 25 күн бұрын

thank you Discrete Mathematics for giving me the tools to understand this a lil' bit.

@MaxWithTheSax 2 ай бұрын

Wouldn't it be more precise to talk about finding functions that scale faster than other functions. That would automatically satisfy the requirement of having a way to generate the number and only caring about number classes.

@sayaks12 2 ай бұрын

some functions have a minimum size to define them, which the size limit of a text helps constrain. so it's not entirely the same problem

@-_Nuke_- 2 ай бұрын

Ok loader's number + 1 I win every time...

@ataraxianAscendant 2 ай бұрын

that wouldnt fit in 140 characters

@zihaoooi787 2 ай бұрын

@@ataraxianAscendant lambda loader's number didn't fit in 140 characters

@creativenametxt2960 2 ай бұрын

Now to find the most awkward numbers: define the most awkward number of n to be the least natural number that's not expressed as any lambda calculus expression of size n or lower (obviously awkward(n)an+b for some a and b since you have an exponential bound on the program count and you can just write down the number naively) kinda interesting to know what those are, but also they are presumably uncomputable

@Phobozothebozo 2 ай бұрын

Hell yeah. This day just got better

@Snakeinmasuup 15 күн бұрын

Hey @CodeParade, i dont know if im supposed to ask, but can you make a lil game or simulation where you can throw numbers fractions and other mathematical stuff into each other? and every time you do, a sound effect and the sum, product, quotient, difference, etc pops up and the numbers you tossed at each other disappear.

@bfdiisgreat 2 ай бұрын

wait, PATCAIL!? the one who made that one incremental game i played!? didn't expect to hear that name on here!

@CantEscape1.4M 2 ай бұрын

Finally the sequel came out

@MythosHB 2 ай бұрын

What this is asking for: "The largest number that does NOT fit into a text message" does fit into a text message and we get another fancy paradox.

@louislee7621 2 ай бұрын

>says greedy clique sequences are not rigorously proven >uses BMS as an example

@CodeParade 2 ай бұрын

There's a paper, the lower bound was proven recently.

@louislee7621 2 ай бұрын

@@CodeParadeReally? Cool!

@kingarthur4088 2 ай бұрын

BMS mention LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOO

@ophello 2 ай бұрын

What I want to know is the likelihood of whether a number contains a known string. For example, what is the probability that Graham’s number contains a string of digits that form a video of me taking my first steps as a baby? I want to see numbers classified in this way.

@dm9910 23 күн бұрын

Your question as stated is technically not well-defined. First, to have a correspondence between a string of digits and a video, you need some system of encoding. If you don't specify such a system as part of your question, any number can form the video you suggested: we can just define a function Decode(n) that's hardcoded to simply return your video for any input n. Second problem is that "a video of me taking my first steps as a baby" is pretty vague. If I take a video of you, set the resolution to 1x1, set the length to 1 frame, and make it black and white, the whole video is just 1 bit of information. So you'll need to be a little more precise. Third problem is that Graham's number is finite and not random. So, strictly speaking, the true probability of a specific video appearing is either 1 or 0. But you could ask the probability that, if we were to generate a random video of a certain size, that video appears somewhere in G. Which should be equivalent to what you intended in your question. If you were pick any standard video codec and have a specific video file to search for, the probability should be extremely, extremely close to 1, assuming that the digits of a random substring of G are themselves sufficiently random (which I think is the case but I'm not sure). Let's say your video is 10MB in size: that's 8*10^7 bits. If we were to have a random string of that many bits, the probability of it being your exact video are the same as flipping 8^10^7 coins in a row and getting heads each time, which has a probability of 1/(2^(8^10^7)). This is a pretty big number by any normal standard, but the fact that we can easily write it with regular exponentiation shows that it's nothing compared to our friend big G so it would be almost certain to occur. To speak even more generally, if you come up with a string X to appear in G, its probability will almost certainly fall into one of four categories: 1, extremely close to 1, 0, and extremely close to zero. G has so many digits that the chance of your chosen X being within any reasonable number of orders of magnitude would be pretty much unfathomable.

@Alxndr57834 Ай бұрын

Werr running out of words to describe these ever growing number sequences. There's no practicality to such large numbers so it's really just a fun mental exercise.

@YPaCtL 2 ай бұрын

Fun fact: Patcail made an incremental game about ordinals called Ordinal Markup that sure is more likes than i ever got

@Vixeneye1 2 ай бұрын

My brain is too smooth for this. I need to be immortal to understand this but still was an interesting watch

@wiseowl83 14 күн бұрын

4D golf would go crazy on VR, would definitely recommend trying to port it

@XianRoblox21 2 ай бұрын

was waiting for this

@ipoprz9301 2 ай бұрын

Proving the output of a function is crazy

@DEMEMZEA 2 ай бұрын

No way! Patcail! That used-to-be huge bastard! I'm a mod in his ( now dead ) discord server, and those were some years, i'll tell ya. Also, haven't seen him in years, never expected to see him again

@maianho6084 2 ай бұрын

BB(n) is a uncomputable function, just not in your sense. BB(n) is a searching function, search a Turing machine that output a langest string of 1 that is terminated. The uncomputable sense is it gonna take forever to compute.

@Ranorith 2 ай бұрын

Yeah I feel there is a confusion here between uncomputable functions, and uncomputable numbers. While BB(n) is an uncomputable function, I'm pretty sure that BB(n), for a specific n, is not an uncomputable number.

@CodeParade 2 ай бұрын

Finding BB(n) is not limited by computational power, you can't just leave a computer running and get an answer. The problem is, you have programs running and you can't tell if the program will end with a massive number, or never end. For example, imagine your program iterates all numbers and returns the first number that doesn't reach the 1-2-4 loop of the Collatz conjecture. That might be a *really* large number, or it might run forever, but you won't know which unless you prove or disprove the Collatz conjecture first. Likewise, finding BB(n) involves finding proofs to tons of math problems like that, it can't be computed by just leaving a computer running. That's why it's called "uncomputable".

@janisir4529 29 күн бұрын

If it takes forever to compute even in the theoretical sense, then it's not computable.

@Brightgalrs 2 ай бұрын

Great! Like I said, a followup video was always possible!

@Enzo_1098 2 ай бұрын

aint no way this is my motivation to study PTOs

@the-greenest-tea 2 ай бұрын

I don't understand why in rule 2 demonstration, when replacing the right branch with the entire tree, the left branch also gets replaced (and this doesn't seem to happen in subsequent steps?)

@the-greenest-tea 2 ай бұрын

does the left branch in that first step actually count as the right branch because it started out as one at the beginning of the game? And so there are two "right branches"?

@the-greenest-tea 2 ай бұрын

No, that doesn't seem right because the same thing happens in the next step and the left branch (which was right at the start) is left alone. I'm still confused.

@jivejunior8753 2 ай бұрын

The next step here would be to remove the arbitrary restrictions on text length, for we live in a finite observable universe. How large is the largest number using all atoms in the universe to represent it? How about all particles in the universe? All permutations of planck units?

@shophaune2298 2 ай бұрын

in terms of computable numbers that's still going to be Loader's number, I believe. If you mean the largest possible number under those constraints, then we're looking at Rayo's number (which is uncomputable, it declares itself as the largest number less than a googol symbols - approximately the number of subatomic particles in the universe - without providing a means to calculate it)

@janisir4529 29 күн бұрын

It'd be the same function, just with a bigger input.

@gomersvlogtv..2890 Ай бұрын

Hey there!, Talk about trio sequence system! Or TSS which grows from multi exponent to passing fast growing ordinal Its sentence is TSS(n) It already passes bukholz in 700! We could spam it and make layers with it

@TulipsinAntartica 2 ай бұрын

I fear the game that is going to come out of this series of videos.

@Googolbanger 2 ай бұрын

If ψ₀ (Ω) ascends beaf notation, then it is part of a infinite growing notation (FGH)?

@PunmasterSTP 2 ай бұрын

Now all we need is a large number-finding game 👍

@ajreukgjdi94 2 ай бұрын

I could write a function that would type out the symbols to make up Rayo's number, even if I couldn't compute it. Even that would probably take longer than the age of the universe to complete, but I could do it.

@ThePooPoo-xb2yv 17 күн бұрын

oh damn thats me! cmon bro bigfoot is a awesome name tho

@wiirambo7437 2 ай бұрын

How can an axiom system like ZF or ZFC even have a countable proof theoretic ordinal if they can proof the exisitence of uncountable ordinals?

@stephaniecarcieri8850 2 ай бұрын

There is still a ordinal that can fit in 1 character: Ω/Omega Capital

@itsjerlyn59 14 күн бұрын

You can just do BIG FOOT, Sam's Number, Utter Oblivion, Ultimate Oblivion, and if you REALLY want a big number, do phi omega of 0.

@kashskitchen7178 2 ай бұрын

Wow. Still not as big as my… uh, my uh… my lose streak in video games

@polymations 2 ай бұрын

💀

@MichaelDarrow-tr1mn 2 ай бұрын

wait. patcail? like, the guy who mode ordinal markup?

@zihaoooi787 2 ай бұрын

yup.

@glenwalford7029 14 күн бұрын

Ultimate oblivion is the biggest number I have found before infinity… But why are there so many numbers bigger than infinity WHY!

@leethejailer9195 2 ай бұрын

Can you make a video on the greatest cardinals higher than inaccessible?

@mateobaca628 2 ай бұрын

If I would choose a Bigger num (doesn’t matter that there are bigger ones) I would choose something that needs Babel Library Possible Books arrangement (Borges Cited) ~ 1M x 10^10^1,000,000 Bytes in BLC. curious that BL is the initials for both Babel’s Library and Binary Lambda. From now it would sound uncomputable-ish but I would choose this New Number order.

@thefreshprinceofAZ Күн бұрын

Large Garden number is bigger it even makes infinity seem small.

@Luzgar 2 ай бұрын

How about a ratio between the number of symbols to express the number and the number itself?

@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven 2 ай бұрын

At that point, the number of symbols required to express the number would be totally immaterial, because (say) Loader's number/233 is pretty much equal to Loader's number. Really, this applies to any number once you get above the scale of 10^10^n.

@Luzgar 2 ай бұрын

@@rtg_onefourtwoeightfiveseven Seems like a simple ration is not going to cut it, but relating the two still sound interesting. We would need some kind of byte efficiency metric.

@markangeloyumul1007 2 ай бұрын

And it's still closer to 0 than infinity

@rtxagent6303 Ай бұрын

It’s infinitely closer to 0 than infinity

@tommyho2410 2 ай бұрын

if you want a big numbers just write the numbers very big

@Unknown_Number858 2 ай бұрын

bro you only mention oblivion and utter oblivion once in the video 😭

@007Rincewind 2 ай бұрын

Wow, loaders number is really big.

@AdamAliTaylor 2 ай бұрын

That number plus 1

@rtxagent6303 Ай бұрын

A+

@JJean64 2 ай бұрын

Not first

@hanshh3532 2 ай бұрын

Congratulations! You were first. You won 5 internet credits.

@user-sl6gn1ss8p 2 ай бұрын

Also not last

@juanlajeunesse7605 2 ай бұрын

Busy Beaver utter oblivion💀

@swannie1503 2 ай бұрын

JSON parsing to compute Bucholz Ordinals. Ouchies

@FranticErrors 2 ай бұрын

zzzz... for 140 characters z = to zzz.. for 140 characters you see where im going with this

@sentry3118 2 ай бұрын

Math never existed.

@Kwauhn. 2 ай бұрын

It's true. I'm math, and I'm not real.

@limeylime8027 4 күн бұрын

2:35 this isn’t what people were thinking because you said the biggest number, not the biggest class of numbers. Don’t use word salads to weasel your way out of this. A number plus 1 is still larger than that original number because that’s how math works.