Really BIG numbers...
Posted by: Mike Dudley on 11 February 2010
A "Google" is 10 to the power 100.
A "Googleplex" is 10 ten to the power a Google.
A "Graham's" number is a number so vast that if you were to try to write one zero of the Graham's number on each atom in the universe, there would not be enough atoms to do it.
Is any of this at all useful?
Discuss.
A "Googleplex" is 10 ten to the power a Google.
A "Graham's" number is a number so vast that if you were to try to write one zero of the Graham's number on each atom in the universe, there would not be enough atoms to do it.
Is any of this at all useful?
Discuss.
Posted on: 18 February 2010 by Don Phillips
quote:Originally posted by mongo:
Sniper, I will do better. I will put my money in your pocket. Just tell me the title of your book.
Sorry Mongo, the book in question seems to be out of print! see
Don, overcast downtown York
Posted on: 18 February 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by Sniper:quote:Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I have had an email from Professor Stewart who confirms he is not "Snipr", but that he is "looking into it".
make sure you post his reply.
Has this Most Illuminating email been shown?
Posted on: 18 February 2010 by 151
i thought you wanted a peaceful life, but that was obviously bullshit.
Posted on: 18 February 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
I'm puzzled now; looks like 657 people can ask Sniper the same question, ad dullardry, but as soon as *I* ask him a question its wrong?
Why me?
Why me?
Posted on: 19 February 2010 by Sniper
quote:Originally posted by Steve2701:
SO now it's for you to decide whether I can reply or not - which is dependant on me understanding a theory (that was still a theory when I was reading that stuff back in'79)
We both know you can't prove that 2+2 doesn't = 4, at least not with empirical data that is not theory.
Basic maths, I would suggest, is not tosh as you say.
At least we both agree that those who know better than us, and are indeed held in the highest of esteem by the greatest experts in the field of art can get it completely wrong.
Do you think Godel got it completely wrong because it can't be proved that 2+2=4?
Posted on: 19 February 2010 by Sniper
quote:Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
As I understand it from Sniper's posts, the idea that Quantum Theory is directly linked to the nature of conciousness, is still an unsubstantiated hypothesis. It seems that all we have is some professional physicists who are proposing it, and on the other hand, some who are opposing it.
ie: Not proved.
I haven't seen any proposals as to how a test of the hypothesis could be progressed, either.
Here is max Planck - A founding father of Quantum Physics 'I regard conciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from conciousness.'
Of course I admit that had trevp been alive at the same time as Planck he would undoubtedly (with the help of Trev's beginner's guide)have put Planck right.
Posted on: 19 February 2010 by Sniper
quote:Originally posted by mongo:
[QUOTE]
Sniper, I will do better. I will put my money in your pocket. Just tell me the title of your book.
Stout fellow! Are you offering a goodly wager or merely implying you will buy my book?
Posted on: 19 February 2010 by Pigeon_Fancier
Fortuitous then that he was called Plank.
This is a genius thread - which demands that I beg your leave.
This is a genius thread - which demands that I beg your leave.
Posted on: 19 February 2010 by Sniper
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:quote:Originally posted by Sniper:quote:Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
I have had an email from Professor Stewart who confirms he is not "Snipr", but that he is "looking into it".
make sure you post his reply.
Has this Most Illuminating email been shown?
Nah! Big Surprise!
Posted on: 21 February 2010 by mongo
Yup. Where is it?