Not to beat a dead horse, but big numbers aren't inherently interesting to
describe.
There are integers bigger than any integer anyone has written down in any
form. This particular integer is large, but "consumable".
I guess I get tired of the "number of atoms in the observable universe"
>
>
> I am pretty sure that such an implicit expression exists: it is << the
>> number of etc etc
>>
>
> We do not speak of just the definition of what kind of number to find, but
> of the construction of finding the number (or already of a compression of
> its explicit digits).
It's hard to
>
>
> How do you know that an implicit expression (of length smaller than 10^80)
> of the number does not exist? :)
>
I am pretty sure that such an implicit expression exists: it is << the
number of etc etc >> (formalized for your favorite set of rules :-) ).
--
On 31.01.2016 17:19, John Tromp wrote:
It will never be known since there's not enough space in the known
universe to write it down. We're talking about a number with over
10^100 digits.
How do you know that an implicit expression (of length smaller than
10^80) of the number does not exist?
On 31.01.2016 19:57, John Tromp wrote:
What is your best estimate of point where where chances are even?
I do not know.
what numbers the press could use that are not too arbitrary.
- The number P of legal positions.
- An empirical average number I of available intersections for the next
According to John Tromp et al at http://tromp.github.io/go/legal.html
the number of legal 19x19 go positions is
P19 =
2081681993819799846
9947863334486277028
6522453884530548425
6394568209274196127
3801537852564845169
8519643907259916015
6281285460898883144
2712971531931755773
dear Robert,
> The number G19 of legal games under a given go ruleset is unknown.
It will never be known since there's not enough space in the known
universe to write it down. We're talking about a number with over
10^100 digits.
> For positional
> superko (prohibition of recreation of the same
