Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- From: "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-py2@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:54:54 -0300
En Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:30:34 -0300, Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
"Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-py2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Which is the largest number that can be written with only 3
digits?" Some people stop at 999, others try 99**9 and 9**99, and
the winner is 9**9**9
Since exponentiation is (I think?) the highest-order function we
understand for writing *only* digits on the page, then yes, your
answer is right, if no other mathematical notation is allowed.
Since others seem to be reading "only 3 digits" as "3 digits plus
other well-defined mathematical notation", here's the best answer
given those criteria:
<URL:http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html>
Thanks, very interesting article! I like the idea of Busy Beaver numbers: so simple to express, rather comprehensible, but enormously big...
--
Gabriel Genellina
.
- References:
- Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- From: Paul Rubin
- Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- From: Jim Langston
- Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- From: David Jones
- Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- From: Paul McGuire
- Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- From: Gabriel Genellina
- Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- From: Ben Finney
- Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- Prev by Date: Understanding python functions - Instant Python tutorial
- Next by Date: Re: wx.App console window [Windows]
- Previous by thread: Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- Next by thread: Re: 2**2**2**2**2 wrong? Bug?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|