Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:41 AM Liz R wrote: *> I have a simpler answer!* > *"the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds"* > *...can be written in 5 seconds.* > I can beat that and it would take even less time to write: "the largest integer you can write in 5 YEARS" John K Clark > --

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 3:39 AM Liz R wrote: *> Graham's number tetrated Graham's number times? That took about 5 > seconds, does it come close?* Tetration is computable and the Busy Beaver Function grows faster than ANY computable function. We don't know what BB(7) is but we do know its

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

I have a simpler answer! "the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds" ...can be written in 5 seconds. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

Graham's number tetrated Graham's number times? That took about 5 seconds, does it come close? On Wednesday, 6 March 2019 07:06:24 UTC+13, John Clark wrote: > > It's easy to prove that the Busy Beaver Function grows faster than *ANY* > computable function because if there were such a faster

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 22:00, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > BB(8000) is stil an infinitesimal (so to speak) compared to > f_epsilon_0(BB(8000)). > > I don't know what "f_epsilon_0" is but if its computable then

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

> On 8 Mar 2019, at 15:49, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > >> Assuming you're just using 2 symbols (like 0 and 1) there are (16001)^8000 > >> different 8000 state Turing Machines. And that is a very large number but

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > *BB(8000) is stil an infinitesimal (so to speak) compared to > f_epsilon_0(BB(8000)).* I don't know what "f_epsilon_0" is but if its computable then BB[BB(8000)] would be a larger number than that because BB grows faster than any

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:05 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Assuming you're just using 2 symbols (like 0 and 1) there are >> (16001)^8000 different 8000 state Turing Machines. And that is a very >> large number but a finite one. And one of those machines makes the largest >> number of FINITE

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

> On 7 Mar 2019, at 15:04, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > > > Usually, when asked to name a big number, we mean to provide a number that > > e can compute in a finite time (no matter how long). BB(8000) will be > >

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 8:18 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> Usually, when asked to name a big number, we mean to provide a number > that e can compute in a finite time (no matter how long). BB(8000) will be > rejected, because it is not a definite description, or name, because BB is > not

Re: What is the largest integer you can write in 5 seconds?

> On 5 Mar 2019, at 19:05, John Clark wrote: > > It's easy to prove that the Busy Beaver Function grows faster than ANY > computable function because if there were such a faster growing function you > could use it to solve the Halting Problem. So if you're ever in a contest to > see who can