Here's the link to Aronson's essay

http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 18, 2015, at 12:20 PM, "R.E. Boss" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Link?
> 
> Notice that Conway (who else?) in The Book of Numbers wrote a generalization
> of Knuth's up-notation (actually the Ackermann notation), his chained arrow
> notation.
> 
> 
> R.E. Boss
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:programming-
>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of John Baker
>> Sent: woensdag 18 februari 2015 16:15
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Fwd: Hello all!
>> 
>> Very slick. I was just reading Scott Aronson's fine blog post about the
> Busy
>> Beaver problem and he commented on Knuth's up up notation. If anyone's
>> interested in very large numbers Aronson's post is a superb overview.
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Feb 17, 2015, at 3:05 PM, Jose Mario Quintana
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This a way to produce numbers using the Knuth up arrow notation in J:
>>> 
>>>  Knuth=. &* NB. (adv)
>>>  up=. &1    NB. (adv)
>>> 
>>>  2x  Knuth up up    4 5
>>> 65536
>> 2003529930406846464979072351560255750447825475569751419265016973710
>> 8940595563114530895061308809333481010382343429072631818229493821188
>> 1266886950636476154702916504187191635158796634721944293092798208430
>> 9104855990570159318959639524863372367203002916969...
>>> 
>>>  # @: ": 2x Knuth up up 5
>>> 19729
>>> 
>>>  6x Knuth up up 3
>> 2659119772153226779682489404387918594905342200269924300660432789497
>> 0735598738829091213422929061755830324406828265067234256016357755902
>> 7938964261261109302039893034777446061389442537960087466214788422902
>> 2133853819192905427915750759274952935109319020362271989...
>>>  #@: ": 6x Knuth up up 3
>>> 36306
>>> 
>>>  3x Knuth up up up 0 1 2
>>> 1 3 7625597484987
>>> 
>>> 2x Knuth up up 6  NB. It is toooooooooooo big!
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Fausto Saporito
>> <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hello,
>>>> 
>>>> yes the number is very big, but why if I don't use the extended
>>>> precision I have "infinity" as result, and if I use it I got an error
>>>> ?
>>>> 
>>>> I should get infinity anyways.
>>>> 
>>>> this is my J session:
>>>> 
>>>> ^/ 2 2 2 2
>>>> 
>>>> 65536
>>>> 
>>>> ^/ 2 2 2 2 2      NB. do not use extended precision and I have "+inf"
>>>> 
>>>> _
>>>> 
>>>> ^/ 2 2 2 2 2 2   NB. do not use extended precision and I have "+inf"
>>>> 
>>>> _
>>>> 
>>>> ^/ x: 2 2 2 2 2   NB. using extended precision I have the result (part
> of
>>>> it)
>> 2003529930406846464979072351560255750447825475569751419265016973710
>> 8940595563114530895061308809333481010382343429072631818229493821188
>> 1266886950636476154702916504187191635158796634721944293092798208430
>> 9104855990570159318959639524863372367203002916969592156...
>>>> 
>>>> ^/ x: 2 2 2 2 2 2 NB. using extended precision I have error... not
> "+inf"
>>>> 
>>>> |limit error
>>>> 
>>>> | ^/x:2 2 2 2 2 2
>>>> 
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knuth%27s_up-arrow_notation
>>>> 
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Fausto
>>>> 
>>>> 2015-02-17 18:55 GMT+01:00 'Pascal Jasmin' via Programming
>>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>>> 2 ^. ^/ 5 # 2x
>>>>> 65536
>>>>> 
>>>>> so at just 5, it is a 65k bit number
>>>>> 
>>>>> at 6, the 2log of that number would be that 65kbit number.  The number
>>>> of atoms in the universe is an 80 bit number.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Raul Miller <[email protected]>
>>>>> To: Programming forum <[email protected]>
>>>>> Cc:
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 12:32 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] Fwd: Hello all!
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would guess that the number you are generating is too big to be
>>>>> represented using J's data structures (which would also suggest that
>>>>> it would be too big to fit into memory).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Raul
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Fausto Saporito
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> HI!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm a new J user with a little experience of APL and LISP.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In these days I'm playing with big numbers... very big indeed, and I
>>>>>> found a bug (?) in the exteded precision implementation of J.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm not sure if I can call it a bug, but if I use the standard
>>>>>> precision number I got a "infinity" as result... as should be.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm talking about knuth-up-arrow notation, to build the "tower of
>>>>>> power". In J the syntax is amazingly simple : ^/ 2 2 2 2
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2^^4 is 2 * (2* (2* 2)) = 65536
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Now 2^^5 is _ with standard precision... but if I use x:  (i.e. ^/ x:
>>>>>> 2 2 2 2 2) can get most of number... it's quite big indeed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The problem arises with 2^^6 or 3^^4 I get "limit error" instead of _
>>>> ... why ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Is it an expected behaviour ?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks in advance,
>>>>>> Fausto
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> For information about J forums see
>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>>> 
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> For information about J forums see
>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> For information about J forums see
>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> For information about J forums see
>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For information about J forums see
>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to