Trust google

[large_ghostman]

If you google worlds largest number in google you get (well i got) this

And if you use wikipedia you get both the right and wrong answer! Wrong answer if you do a basic whats the largest number type question (I guess google donates well to them), and the right answer if you already know or have a good idea what the answer is.

I take wiki with salt alot of the time, but I expect google to be a bit more reliable!

 

[DerStrom8]

Not even a googolplex of facepalms could suffice.....

 

[nsaspook]

 

[large_ghostman]

I should have added it was originally grahams number, the guy didnt know the exact number but came up with the last X amount of digits, Grahams while not the biggest number anymore is till way bigger than a google this or that and has been around since the 70's??

The reason I looked it up was because I had a total mind blank on what conditions have to be met for a number to be real, in case you land here by google I am explaining this, the smart people here already know all this! You cant take the biggest number and just keep adding 1, there is a mathematical basis for numbers and i am pretty sure its going to be in my maths paper, but I went blank while revising. So anyone doing the exam this year dont get caught out like 99% of people did last year with this question, googolplex is not the largest and the question will be something along the lines of............What is the largest number and explain why the number dosnt end in 9 (or something like that).

I am guessing this years higher plus exams are going to be tricky again, so personally I am going to see if it states first or second order proof, if its first then go with 7 as the final number and if its second then its unlikely we will be asked for the last did git, but more likely we will be asked to name the theorem. Obviously i am not going to hand it on a plate as I have worked hard on revising, but just in case its similar to last year try and remember the last 4 digits of grahams number. Finally watch out for a question asking for the first X number of digits, these have to my knowledge never been computed!
Just for info the last 12 digits for grahams are 262464195387 although the higher plus course book has them different, the main part though will be the last 4 and especially the last one, it will always be a 7.

Sorry for A level students in England I dont have any knowledge of what was in the course or likely to be in the exam, the above is based on the Scottish Exam last year and the course work this year, with a few guesses thrown in as to how they are going to drop the 4 bomb questions.

Good luck everyone doing the exam lets do better than last years students!! (not hard).

oh and a hint Kruskal's tree theorem, start the spade work there

 

[tcmtech]

Volume of the measurable universe divided by Plank length cubed.

That's the largest number that can exist in reality. Everything else above that is a abstract.

As the universe expands the numerical limit increases but still at any definable instant in time (Plank time scaling limit) as we know it's still a fixed number.

 

[large_ghostman]

Width of the measurable universe divided by Plank length.

That's the largest number that can exist in reality. Everything else above that is a abstract.

My post relates to the exam we are about to sit, I take your point entirely but part of the course was Quantum. So if Plank is mentioned then i suspect that will be a trap question, last years paper was notorious for being really hard because it lead you down the wrong paths, it was designed to get away from parrot style memory. Hence why the crocodile question while being easy caught most people out, it wasnt so much the problem but the clever way thay worded it. Also you cant accurately measure the CURRENT universe, you will always be playing catch up

Also surely if you divide something like that you make the number smaller?

 

[tcmtech]

Actually, if you take a number of measurements then the value at any given point in time can extrapolated and be known.

Tricky but still definable yet as long as time exists still always a fixed point at any given instant.

The rest is just semantics.

 

[large_ghostman]

Blast I did a post and deleted it!! Not typing it all again but let me play devils advocate for min.

This is not how I see it personally but I want to put another side across.

If you take the known universe and count the number of particles (subatomic included) what would that number be?

My point being that the known universe isnt the universe, we discover new particles daily, so lets say your job was to count all the particles in the universe.........

just so I dont go off topic The info I posted above was strictly related to the exam stuff!! anything below that isnt relevant to the exam.

Ok now we can discuss the other stuff as it fascinates me

 

[large_ghostman]

Actually, if you take a number of measurements then the value at any given point in time can extrapolated and be known.

Tricky but still definable yet as long as time exists still always a fixed point at any given instant.

The rest is just semantics.

4 times the rate of expansion for the universe has been recalculated, last thing i read (on CERN somewhere) was to do with the non linear acceleration of the universe. so extrapolation would be nigh on impossible to be accurate. I am not arguing with you but I would like to debate both sides. I have a bit of a problem with some of the sub atomic stuff, I dont agree with CERN (now thats some arrogance!!) but I will argue it from a different perspective to the one I hold

 

[cowboybob]

Google "esoteric"...

Apparently, the "largest" number only qualifies as such IF it has been used to solve some manner of mathematical query:

(curious that both guys have UK accents... ).

Yet, infinity (∞), which I've always considered as THE really big number, is summarily ejected from consideration, despite its significant usage in The Calculus.

Anyway, I thought the comment, about filling one's mind with a black hole, extremely apt in that I now have a headache.

LG, should you be prepared to answer: "What is the smallest number"?

 

[large_ghostman]

Google "esoteric"...

Apparently, the "largest" number only qualifies as such IF it has been used to solve some manner of mathematical query:

(curious that both guys have UK accents... ).

Yet, infinity (∞), which I've always considered as THE really big number, is summarily ejected from consideration, despite its significant usage in The Calculus.

Anyway, I thought the comment, about filling one's mind with a black hole, extremely apt in that I now have a headache.

LG, should you be prepared to answer: "What is the smallest number"?

The mathematical query is why I said you cant just add 1 to the largest number and make another, the complexity is grahams number is no longer the largest, but the largest is ojnly the largest if you are prepared to except second order as good enough. As for head hurt yeah tell me about it! want one of my aspirins? trust me I stocked up on them .

As for the smallest number............................. Now that is a brain explosion not just a headache!

Infinity is an enigma at my school, we have one maths teacher (applied maths) who is adamant that infinity isnt a number but a concept and my other maths teacher (pure math) is equally adamant that infinity is a quantifiable number of unknown digits (so basically she is saying she thinks its a number but hasnt a clue what number lol).

I am focusing on the exam and what the books and course work has said as this is what the exam is based upon. Some of the questions are going to have the wrong answers, the trick is knowing when to give the real life answer and when to give the wrong answer thats going to be right for the exam!

A good example of this is Technology and Chemistry, in technology they insist on using conventional current, but in Chemistry and physics we use electron current. EXCEPT in physics when talking about electromagnetism the book insists on conventional current. So part of the problem with exams is knowing what THEY think the correct answer should be! I am starting to like Art, draw a squiggle colour it in, give it a funky name and job done!

English I am rubbish at, i will be lucky to scrape a pass so i have a plan. As I now live in Scotland and they hate the English I am going to rite at the top of the paper............. Sorry but as we live in the great nation of Scotland I refuse to do, or have anything to do with an Exam based on ENGLISH, I am however prepared to do one based on Scottish . Its likely to get me the same grade as actually sitting the exam lol.

Seriously though i will give it my best shot at the exam. We have a debate section this time!! I love that, fighting without blood is how I see it . my chosen debate is why non vegetarian plants should be considered something other than a plant. I figured it would be hard for someone to argue against, the title is slightly misleading but the debate brief makes it clear what I am arguing (debating sorry).

 

[tcmtech]

God I hate those numberphile guys.

"If" does not belong in mathematical proofs and neither do most of their idiotic jumping to conclusions either.

 

[DerStrom8]

God I hate those numberphile guys.

"If" does not belong in mathematical proofs and neither do most of their idiotic jumping to conclusions either.

I ran across something of theirs a year or two ago, it said something like the sum of all positive real numbers is -1/12. In other words, 1+2+3+4+5+6...+∞ = -1/12. Their "proof" was ridiculous, it made all sorts of assumptions that made no sense at all. And thinking logically, how do you sum positive numbers and get a negative number? Usually I like those guys, and some of their stuff is great, but I don't like that one.

 

[large_ghostman]

It might be just me, but i find if I understand something and then watch one of there videos on it i get really confused. they have a way of explaining things that totally confuses me.
For example it took me ages to learn some of the stuff quads like using quaternions, but watch there video on them and now I am confused!!
I will stick with how know it rather than how they explained it, maybe its just that one guy, but he totally messes my head up when he explains stuff.

I cant find a good video at the moment that shows they way I learnt how to use it for the quad (I used a book) but this is there video on it and rotating in 3D

So the question is.......... Is this a good explanation (in that case the problem is me) or do you find his explanation a bit confusing? (in which case its him lol)

 

[tcmtech]

I ran across something of theirs a year or two ago, it said something like the sum of all positive real numbers is -1/12. In other words, 1+2+3+4+5+6...+∞ = -1/12. Their "proof" was ridiculous, it made all sorts of assumptions that made no sense at all. And thinking logically, how do you sum positive numbers and get a negative number? Usually I like those guys, and some of their stuff is great, but I don't like that one.

That was the one that got me watching their stuff. After about four different ones I couldn't stomach the idiocy of it anymore.

Personally, I think they do more damage to the name and concepts of mathematic than they do good. To me they are to mathematics what pedophiles are to children. Delusional and severely misguided is as polite as I can say it.

 

[tcmtech]

It might be just me, but i find if I understand something and then watch one of there videos on it i get really confused. they have a way of explaining things that totally confuses me.
For example it took me ages to learn some of the stuff quads like using quaternions, but watch there video on them and now I am confused!!
I will stick with how know it rather than how they explained it, maybe its just that one guy, but he totally messes my head up when he explains stuff.

Their videos are confusing (to be politely put) because they continually take multiple mass and wrongly directed assumptions at everything and totally ignore the real world limits of reality to come up with the answers they get.

It's like my earlier Plank Length reference. ~1.6 x10E-35 meters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

It's the well defined and scientifically held standard of being the smallest anything can be and still exist. There is no 1/2 or 1/4 or 1/x Plank length. 1 is it. Nothing exists smaller and any alliteration to anything smaller, numerical value or otherwise, is imaginary and not real.

Same as the measurable dimensions of the Universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Sure its continually expanding at the speed of light in all directions but until a single particle of material information goes some place new there is nothing beyond that because there is no definable physical representation of substance to measure from past that first particle of material information.

At a distance of just one Plank length time ahead of that particle all reference to dimensions falls apart and 1 Plank Lenght and 1 light year and infinite time are equal yet undefinable/unmeasurable.

Given that the rough estimate for volume of the universe in cubic Plank lengths works out to around 3.4331 x 10E300 give or take which to me now sets the upper limit area for a real number in our universe as I see it.

My head hurts now.

 

[large_ghostman]

Then how can you measure the diameter of a sub atomic particle? The trouble with measuring the universe using the speed of light is time, time isnt a constant, if you measure from one side of the universe to the other and transect say a black hole then the space around the hole is warped (longer).

So again playing devils advocate I cant see how you accurately measure the universe, the same way as in the real world no meter length of steel will be 1 meter, yes we have an agreed standard but that is kind of arbutary in as much as its length was decided rather than it being a real lengh.

Same way as a second has no real meaning, if you say a second is the rate of decay of X number of Y atomic material then that second is shorter at sea level than say the upper atmosphere. So its a compromise and not a 'real' constant (real as in fixed by nature)

 

[tcmtech]

As defined by agreed upon units of measure set by us humans in this reality.

The rest is just semantics.

 

[large_ghostman]

As defined by agreed upon units of measure set by us humans in this reality.

The rest is just semantics.

But who agreed? where and when was the vote? the point being even what was agreed only exists in very specific conditions, the moment the standard is out of it case and room then it will contract or expand and be a different size. PLUS I didnt agree to it so it aint my meter .

Same with time

What I am trying to say is there is no real measurement for time or for say the meter. if you took your meter of steel to the standards place and cut in to the right size there and then, by the time you got home it wouldnt be the same size. The problem gets worse the smaller technology can allow one to measure something.

But my real bear is time, it isnt a constant and dosnt really fit anything, a day isnt 24 hours, if we left the clocks for 1000 years and didnt twiddle them then the hotest part of the year in the UK might be December by then.

And you still havnt explained if a plank is the limit then how can they measure accurately say a boson higs or the distance of a gravity ripple?

I am not arguing with you, I have a slightly different view to what i am saying, but I also dont agree with the plank number, the large numbers are real numbers as they solve a real problem. In the case of graham the problem was theoretical but analogy could be real. The universe was a old standard of huge, but there is no way to measure the universe or accurately work out its volume. If black holes are born then the volume would change as space warps around a hole. Space is now considered elastic rather than fixed (Hawkins theory of something or other).

 

[cowboybob]

English I am rubbish at, i will be lucky to scrape a pass so i have a plan. As I now live in Scotland and they hate the English I am going to rite at the top of the paper............. Sorry but as we live in the great nation of Scotland I refuse to do, or have anything to do with an Exam based on ENGLISH, I am however prepared to do one based on Scottish . Its likely to get me the same grade as actually sitting the exam lol.

Works for me .

Dazzle or baffle. Good luck, LG.