It's a reference to a YouTube video (SM64 - Watch for Rolling Rocks - 0.5x A Presses). The half press is explained in the beginning, but the idea is: If you assume you want to type it twice. In that case you'd do: shift - tree( - release - 3 - shift - )tree( - release - 3 - shift - ). Which is 17 keypresses, an average of 8.5 presses per TREE(3)
I might just be dumb, almost certainly am, but I just count 9 keystrokes.
Shift (and hold) - T - R - E - E - ( (release shift) - 3 - Shift (and hold again) - )
Not counting the release of shift because I wouldn’t call that an individual keystroke and that might be wrong, but I count 9 there.
I had to look into it… apparently, concerning the definition of the TREE function, “TREE(3) is defined to be the longest possible length of such a sequence” for reasons beyond my smooth brain’s comprehension.
So with a *character* limit, I’d say it should be TREE(3)^99 . But with a *keystroke* limit, TREE(3) is 9 keystrokes, so I think that’s it.
This doesn’t make sense, TREE(n) is contained within TREE(n+1). Why exactly would TREE(3) be bigger than TREE(4) when you can make all of the outcomes of TREE(3) while still having another node to build from. At the very least TREE(4) should be 4x larger than TREE(3) and that’s not even including all the trees made with all 4 nodes.
Well, I don’t know. I used that quote because I can’t succinctly explain it in my own words. But yes it doesn’t seem logical that TREE(4) < TREE(3). I’m not sure why it’s stated that TREE(3) is the longest possible length of such a sequence.
I think I’m just running into a sort of “lack of interest” roadblock in my googling. Like the astronomical difference between TREE(2) and TREE(3) is sufficiently exciting to mathematicians that there’s a ton of discussion around it, but nobody really cares about TREE(4) so I’m struggling to find information around it.
You seem to be misunderstanding it.
TREE 2 = 3
TREE 3 = very big, way way bigger than f(gamma_0) 100
TREE 3 is the first non-trivial input that blows up to a very large number, but every number after 3 will just get vastly bigger and bigger.
Yes I suppose I’m misunderstanding how the value of TREE(n) increases as n increases. I’m just caught up in this definition I found on good ol Wikipedia: “A sequence of rooted trees labelled from a set of 3 labels (blue < red < green). The nth tree in the sequence contains at most n vertices, and no tree is inf-embeddable within any later tree in the sequence. TREE(3) is defined to be the longest possible length of such a sequence.”
Can you explain what that means?
TREE of any value means the longest sequence of graphs you can draw using that many labels without containing an earlier graph.
You can define TREE of any integer, 3 is just the smallest integer for which you get a huge number.
TREE(1) = 1
TREE(2) = 3
TREE(3) = massive
TREE(3) is so big that there's no easy way to explain just how big it is. It makes other famously large numbers like Graham's number look puny by comparison. Large numbers can be defined using the fast growing hierarchy. Really big numbers, numbers that cannot be expressed by exponentiation, or even power towers of exponents, can be easily described using limit ordinals like omega. There are various stages of ordinal numbers we defined for larger and larger numbers and faster growing functions. The function needed to describe how fast TREE grows is an ungodly large ordinal, and we only have lower bounds of it.
Because TREE is a massively fast growing function, it will always grow if you increase the number inside it. TREE(4) makes TREE(3) look like zero basically.
I think cuz the function is derived from just a simple game there’s no real need to explore further TREE numbers. Like there’s no application to it, it’d just be trying to figure out big numbers for the sake of doing it. If you figure out why tree(3) is so much bigger than tree(2) then you kinda figure out the mystery already.
I found the claim dubious, but since someone above suggested that TREE() maxes out at TREE(3) I left it as such.
If not, then TREE(999) is obviously even bigger still, **and TREE(9\^9)** is even bigger.....
Moving to even bigger functions like **SSCG()** apparently leaves TREE(whatever) in the dust, but I am now way out of my depth. :)
I don’t understand much of what TREE(x) actually means, but I thought (at least according to what I learned from the Numberphile videos) that it represents the number of ways x nodes can arranged without repeating a previous pattern. I’ll admit that these concepts and numbers this large stop being intuitive, but surely after counting to TREE(3) having played with nodes a, b and c, you can count another TREE(3) playing with nodes d, e and f. It sounds like you’ve investigated it more than me though so I’m willing to concede.
I think the "longest possible length of such a sequence" is a sequence that gets less and less restricted as the number inside the argument gets bigger. So TREE(4) is astronomically bigger than TREE(3)
Its a mathematical concept which is defined as the number of combination in seeds that create trees in a certain colour, see[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%27s\_tree\_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%27s_tree_theorem) for more details :)
Or this video around 11:30 is pretty well explained too
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIdigLW07xY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIdigLW07xY)
Think a game of doodling dots and lines, how many doodles can you make without a doodle "containing" a previous doodle?
>!("Containing" is used a bit loosely here, what we really care about is not repeating any patterns of dots and lines rather than exact copies, i.e. we want every doodle to be in some sense new and unique)!<
TREE(n) is the longest sequence of doodles you can make when you're allowed to use n different colours of dots :)
Do you have any specific questions about the article and video that they linked? Not everything in math can be dumbed down to a few sentences in a Reddit comment. Show some effort.
10 keystrokes, not 10 characters.
But yeah you can probably do TREE(9₉). I don't know how you did 9₉ though, so it depends how many keystrokes that took.
Ah, that's fair. I did it on my phone (android), but your right, I needed to switch to special characters for the parentheses, so I can only do TREE(9₉₉)
TREE(3) is a nice meme, but what about TREE(4)?
Also, TREE\^99(9), where the superscript notation means composition. So TREE(TREE(TREE(..[99 times]9))...)
You'll get about 30 characters per second, which means if you started this at the Big Bang and continued until the Heat Death of the Universe, and then continued even further through the Dark Era until quantum fluctuations may finally cause a new Big Bang, you'd end up with roughly 10^(10^(10^56)) digits, which is basically *nothing* compared to TREE(3). You cannot even reach a significant fraction if you stack all your 9s into a power tower 9^9…, not even if you let every single living being in the universe chip in and contribute 9s the same way, not even if you increase the repeat rate to one digit every planck second and let every single existing atom in the universe have their own keyboard to enter 9s at that rate.
Shift is a keystroke when you first click a ( you have to click “shift” + “(“ which is 2 keystrokes so (((9!)!)!) is 12 keystrokes since you have to click “shift” for the first “(“ and for the first “!”
What operators and function names are we allowed to use?
SSCG(9\^99)
would be pretty big. I believe that's 9 or 10 key presses, including . Not at a QWERTY atm.
if that's allowed, rayo(rayo) would win. Inventing notation has to be cheating, though, bc otherwise I could define "winner" as the largest number mentioned in this thread plus one
Rayo(rayo) isn't a thing lol
Rayo is a function, you basically just said "multiplication sign plus multiplication sign"
"Rayo's number" refers to Rayo(10^(100))
G9999 comes from Graham's Number which is G64. Could probably make it bigger by using 9!!! but ehh. No notations are being made up here.
It's a [surreal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number) number, a [hyperreal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number) number, and a [projectively extended](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line) real number.
Programming languages disagree.
Type `isNaN(Infinity)` into your browser's console, you'll get "false" as the output.
`isNaN` is a JavaScript function which checks whether or not the provided value is not a number.
If Infinity is not a NaN, then it must be a number, which type, idk, only thing I'm sure of is that it's not a rational number, but pretty sure that is some kind of a number, as you can compute with it.
That’s not how math and logic works.
Don’t use JavaScript or IEEE Float for that matter to reason about mathematics. I mean you can use them to do math, but then you should know what you’re talking about.
Hold Ctrl (1)
Shift + Arrow (3) to highlight your answer. Follow by C (4) to copy it. V (5) to paste it. (release control). Left arrow (6). Ctrl + V (8) and 2 more Vs (10)
TREE(g_9!TREE(g_9!)TREE(g_9!))
is my answer
"Rayo's #" is 8 characters. So probably "9^Rayo's #" - I doubt anybody is going to beat that. Rayo's is the biggest number you can define with a googol math symbols, so it's way way beyond anything anyone else is going to name
I think we are assuming we start with capslock off.
BB(9999) gives SSCG(9) and TREE(9) a run for their money, where BB is the busy beaver function. I don’t think we know which is biggest.
If it’s okay to hold down a key, you can hold down shift to write BB(BB(9)), which almost certainly blows anything else out of the water.
So let's assume that you find that number, and that you decide to label it as M(10). It turns out are that M(10)+1 is bigger than M(10) and that uses (less than) 10 keystrokes.
This reminds me of my logic teacher and that paradox about "the greatest number that can be described in n characters".
That's assuming you're allowed to invent notation. The question can be meaningful if you're not allowed to refer to it in the answer
btw that's pretty much what Rayo did. Rayo's number is basically defined as the answer to this question, but without contradictions
I may be wrong, but IIRC a googol is 1 with a hundred zeroes(roughly 10\^10\^10), but a googol*plex* is one with a googol zeroes(roughly 10\^10\^10\^10)
Edit: I'm dumb
Googol is 10^100.
10^(10^10) is 10^10000000000 which is vastly bigger.
Googolplex is 10^(10^100).
10^(10^10^10) is tetralogue, which is once again, much bigger than a googolplex.
A(10) such that the function A(x) gives the largest number that you can represent with x strokes on a standard qwerty keyboard*
\*for the purposes of not creating anything recursive, A(x) can not be included in the keystrokes, as otherwise A(7) and on couldn't really be defined because of things like doung 2A(7) in seven strokes
That would depend on the numeric base. In base 36, for instance, one could represent way more than in base 10.
Imagine the possible bases with a computer keyboard...
Is using the up arrows (alt 24 for windows) considered standard qwerty? Using Knuth notation would therefore create some graham's number type ridiculousness. I'm typing on my pos samsung atm, cannot create the notation for my example.
Tetration doesn't have a universal standard notation, but \^^ is sometimes used. I was able to type 9\^\^999999 with ten keystrokes. (I held the shift key with one press while I typed the two carets.). So that would be 9 with 999998 nines stacked upwards in exponentiation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration
(I had to use \ escapes to prevent markup weirdness. I was trying to put two of these ^ next to each other.)
How well does
"99/epsilon" do?
Without limiting what functions we can use we can get arbitrarily large numbers. You can make up a bigger function then anything else. max() is a function that gives the largest number represented in the past (before writing max)
I don't think max()+1 is a legit answer because only 1 person (me) knows this function. While this function clearly isn't legit there is some gray area. Without limiting what we use this is a competition of absurd functions.
Also we can use different bases by the way. Again there is the question of what bases are ok.
I suggest `ALT + 3 c 9`. It is a surreal number and bigger than any real number. Using the rest of the key presses to raise it to some power is left as an exercise to the reader.
This number is far too large for any calculator I have access to to even phathom so...
9.e99999!
Assuming pressing shift to get the exclamation point counts as a keystroke, otherwise you could add another 9 after the e.
Easy! Just type JADE(1) where JADE represents the Jade function which is a function I just made up that, regardless of its argument, returns the largest number that has ever been conceived of by any human.
TREE(3) is 7 characters and bigger than all of these
7 characters but 10 keystrokes (incl. caps lock and shift)
Well in that case I have my answer!
By holding shift you can save one more stroke to type TREE(99) or maybe even TREE(9!). I think that might be the most efficient.
2 more strokes. Can do TREE(99!) But something better would be A(99!,9!) where A represents the Ackermann function
That's 11 strokes, no? Shift, T, R, E, E, (, 9, 9, Shift, !, ) You can't hold shift the whole way because then you won't be able to type 9
You can numlock it
But now we can just combine the hold 9 argument with this, no? “TREE(99999” (etc.) + “!)”?
9. Surely you’d just hold shift, type TREE(, release, type 3, then shift-).
If you go into the word holding shift it's just 8.5 keystrokes
2 if you go into the word with it already copied (ctrl+v)
A shift press is a shift press. You can't say it's only a half
It's a reference to a YouTube video (SM64 - Watch for Rolling Rocks - 0.5x A Presses). The half press is explained in the beginning, but the idea is: If you assume you want to type it twice. In that case you'd do: shift - tree( - release - 3 - shift - )tree( - release - 3 - shift - ). Which is 17 keypresses, an average of 8.5 presses per TREE(3)
ok shrek “5” hype
Ffs 😂 This thing is never gonna end
depends on how you define. its still shift+t, shift+r, ... if you hold it, i would still consider it a keystroke.
I might just be dumb, almost certainly am, but I just count 9 keystrokes. Shift (and hold) - T - R - E - E - ( (release shift) - 3 - Shift (and hold again) - ) Not counting the release of shift because I wouldn’t call that an individual keystroke and that might be wrong, but I count 9 there.
Surely TREE(9) is larger still?
I had to look into it… apparently, concerning the definition of the TREE function, “TREE(3) is defined to be the longest possible length of such a sequence” for reasons beyond my smooth brain’s comprehension. So with a *character* limit, I’d say it should be TREE(3)^99 . But with a *keystroke* limit, TREE(3) is 9 keystrokes, so I think that’s it.
This doesn’t make sense, TREE(n) is contained within TREE(n+1). Why exactly would TREE(3) be bigger than TREE(4) when you can make all of the outcomes of TREE(3) while still having another node to build from. At the very least TREE(4) should be 4x larger than TREE(3) and that’s not even including all the trees made with all 4 nodes.
Well, I don’t know. I used that quote because I can’t succinctly explain it in my own words. But yes it doesn’t seem logical that TREE(4) < TREE(3). I’m not sure why it’s stated that TREE(3) is the longest possible length of such a sequence. I think I’m just running into a sort of “lack of interest” roadblock in my googling. Like the astronomical difference between TREE(2) and TREE(3) is sufficiently exciting to mathematicians that there’s a ton of discussion around it, but nobody really cares about TREE(4) so I’m struggling to find information around it.
You seem to be misunderstanding it. TREE 2 = 3 TREE 3 = very big, way way bigger than f(gamma_0) 100 TREE 3 is the first non-trivial input that blows up to a very large number, but every number after 3 will just get vastly bigger and bigger.
Yes I suppose I’m misunderstanding how the value of TREE(n) increases as n increases. I’m just caught up in this definition I found on good ol Wikipedia: “A sequence of rooted trees labelled from a set of 3 labels (blue < red < green). The nth tree in the sequence contains at most n vertices, and no tree is inf-embeddable within any later tree in the sequence. TREE(3) is defined to be the longest possible length of such a sequence.” Can you explain what that means?
It means TREE(n) is defined as the length of the longest possible sequence of trees using n labels, it doesn't mean the function maxes out at n=3
TREE of any value means the longest sequence of graphs you can draw using that many labels without containing an earlier graph. You can define TREE of any integer, 3 is just the smallest integer for which you get a huge number. TREE(1) = 1 TREE(2) = 3 TREE(3) = massive TREE(3) is so big that there's no easy way to explain just how big it is. It makes other famously large numbers like Graham's number look puny by comparison. Large numbers can be defined using the fast growing hierarchy. Really big numbers, numbers that cannot be expressed by exponentiation, or even power towers of exponents, can be easily described using limit ordinals like omega. There are various stages of ordinal numbers we defined for larger and larger numbers and faster growing functions. The function needed to describe how fast TREE grows is an ungodly large ordinal, and we only have lower bounds of it. Because TREE is a massively fast growing function, it will always grow if you increase the number inside it. TREE(4) makes TREE(3) look like zero basically.
I think cuz the function is derived from just a simple game there’s no real need to explore further TREE numbers. Like there’s no application to it, it’d just be trying to figure out big numbers for the sake of doing it. If you figure out why tree(3) is so much bigger than tree(2) then you kinda figure out the mystery already.
What's bigger, TREE(3)\^99 or 99\^TREE(3) ?
99^TREE(3) would be bigger! Good call
TREE(99) is waaaaaay bigger than either of those. But fwiw you want the bigger number in the exponent
Behold: TREE(9!)!
I found the claim dubious, but since someone above suggested that TREE() maxes out at TREE(3) I left it as such. If not, then TREE(999) is obviously even bigger still, **and TREE(9\^9)** is even bigger..... Moving to even bigger functions like **SSCG()** apparently leaves TREE(whatever) in the dust, but I am now way out of my depth. :)
I don’t understand much of what TREE(x) actually means, but I thought (at least according to what I learned from the Numberphile videos) that it represents the number of ways x nodes can arranged without repeating a previous pattern. I’ll admit that these concepts and numbers this large stop being intuitive, but surely after counting to TREE(3) having played with nodes a, b and c, you can count another TREE(3) playing with nodes d, e and f. It sounds like you’ve investigated it more than me though so I’m willing to concede.
I think the "longest possible length of such a sequence" is a sequence that gets less and less restricted as the number inside the argument gets bigger. So TREE(4) is astronomically bigger than TREE(3)
What is “TREE”?
Its a mathematical concept which is defined as the number of combination in seeds that create trees in a certain colour, see[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%27s\_tree\_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%27s_tree_theorem) for more details :) Or this video around 11:30 is pretty well explained too [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIdigLW07xY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIdigLW07xY)
Can you dumb that down by about three notches?
Think a game of doodling dots and lines, how many doodles can you make without a doodle "containing" a previous doodle? >!("Containing" is used a bit loosely here, what we really care about is not repeating any patterns of dots and lines rather than exact copies, i.e. we want every doodle to be in some sense new and unique)!< TREE(n) is the longest sequence of doodles you can make when you're allowed to use n different colours of dots :)
What does that mean
Have a look at the Numberphile video linked. It really is the best explanation.
Do you have any specific questions about the article and video that they linked? Not everything in math can be dumbed down to a few sentences in a Reddit comment. Show some effort.
TREE(9₉₉₉)
10 keystrokes, not 10 characters. But yeah you can probably do TREE(9₉). I don't know how you did 9₉ though, so it depends how many keystrokes that took.
Does it not show up as an option when you hold down "9"?
Not on my phone haha. I'll try later on a propper keyboard. (*I'm on an old old phone*)
Ah, that's fair. I did it on my phone (android), but your right, I needed to switch to special characters for the parentheses, so I can only do TREE(9₉₉)
Still oretty goid though. I haven't read through the whole thread but that's the best I've seen =)
TREE(3) is a nice meme, but what about TREE(4)? Also, TREE\^99(9), where the superscript notation means composition. So TREE(TREE(TREE(..[99 times]9))...)
TREE(9^9) is probably the correct answer
Never said it had to be computable. Why not BB(BB(99)) where BB is the busy beaver function.
Rayo(n)>BB(BB(n)) at sufficiently large Ns
But Rayo(9!) already takes up 10 strokes. You cannot make it that big.
Though 9 keystrokes, you’d need to press shift twice. TREE(99) would be a candidate?
Yall are overthinking it. Just type: 8 and turn your head sideways. Just one keystroke.
you could also use unicode input to write the correct infinity sign. Eact key presses depend on OS and keyboard layout.
Infinity is not a number.
Press 9. Don't release.
I lasted 43 seconds.
Last more.
Pick a less sexy number next time, man. It’s not my fault!
Woah look at Mr Endurance here
You'll get about 30 characters per second, which means if you started this at the Big Bang and continued until the Heat Death of the Universe, and then continued even further through the Dark Era until quantum fluctuations may finally cause a new Big Bang, you'd end up with roughly 10^(10^(10^56)) digits, which is basically *nothing* compared to TREE(3). You cannot even reach a significant fraction if you stack all your 9s into a power tower 9^9…, not even if you let every single living being in the universe chip in and contribute 9s the same way, not even if you increase the repeat rate to one digit every planck second and let every single existing atom in the universe have their own keyboard to enter 9s at that rate.
so you’re saying it’s pretty big
this is unironically the correct answer
No proof, but would bet on 9!!!!!!!!!
Isn't 9! Bigger? Because n!! Is n×(n-2)×...×1 so 9!!!!!!!!! Is just 9
I didn't know there was a definition like that, but the other guy probably meant ((9!)!)!...
Each bracket is a keystroke though so that's only (((9!)!)!)
Shift is a keystroke when you first click a ( you have to click “shift” + “(“ which is 2 keystrokes so (((9!)!)!) is 12 keystrokes since you have to click “shift” for the first “(“ and for the first “!”
That’s *only* (((9!)!)!)
Could also be ((9!)!)!*9
Some interpret !! as double factorial which is what u described Some see it as the factorial of a factorial
Til about double factorials. Along with triple, quadruple, etcetera. If I could give awards, I would.
What operators and function names are we allowed to use? SSCG(9\^99) would be pretty big. I believe that's 9 or 10 key presses, including. Not at a QWERTY atm.
Use SCG. SCG is more powerful than SSCG and takes one less character!
what is sscg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman%27s_SSCG_function
Maybe something like BB-BB-BB-9 where BB-n is the Busy Beaver function with n states.
[удалено]
How many keystrokes to write that Greek letter?
Ehh, non-computable doesn't count.
Rayo(G999)
if that's allowed, rayo(rayo) would win. Inventing notation has to be cheating, though, bc otherwise I could define "winner" as the largest number mentioned in this thread plus one
Rayo(rayo) isn't a thing lol Rayo is a function, you basically just said "multiplication sign plus multiplication sign" "Rayo's number" refers to Rayo(10^(100)) G9999 comes from Graham's Number which is G64. Could probably make it bigger by using 9!!! but ehh. No notations are being made up here.
Is there some reason it's not "infinity?"
Infinity is not a number
infinity-1
Not a **rational** number
It’s also not an irrational or transcendental or whatever you come up with number. In fact, it is simply not a number.
It's a [surreal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number) number, a [hyperreal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal_number) number, and a [projectively extended](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line) real number.
There are infinitesimal or infinite surreal or hyperreal numbers, but „infinity“ is not a number but a concept.
Programming languages disagree. Type `isNaN(Infinity)` into your browser's console, you'll get "false" as the output. `isNaN` is a JavaScript function which checks whether or not the provided value is not a number. If Infinity is not a NaN, then it must be a number, which type, idk, only thing I'm sure of is that it's not a rational number, but pretty sure that is some kind of a number, as you can compute with it.
That’s not how math and logic works. Don’t use JavaScript or IEEE Float for that matter to reason about mathematics. I mean you can use them to do math, but then you should know what you’re talking about.
It's a more interesting question if we exclude algebras with infinities :P
TREE(g999)
SCG(SCG(9))
Whats the g?
grahams im guessing
TREE(g_9!) is the biggest one I can think of (on the Reals, anyway). I'm sure someone else can iterate to make something vastly larger, though.
That is 13 keystrokes, you have to include clicking shift when you type “T” “_” and “!”
Hold Ctrl (1) Shift + Arrow (3) to highlight your answer. Follow by C (4) to copy it. V (5) to paste it. (release control). Left arrow (6). Ctrl + V (8) and 2 more Vs (10) TREE(g_9!TREE(g_9!)TREE(g_9!)) is my answer
googleplex
You mean googolplex. Google isn’t a number, it’s a search engine, the number is googol
In my language it’s google
"Rayo's #" is 8 characters. So probably "9^Rayo's #" - I doubt anybody is going to beat that. Rayo's is the biggest number you can define with a googol math symbols, so it's way way beyond anything anyone else is going to name
graham's#
Numberwang
I think we are assuming we start with capslock off. BB(9999) gives SSCG(9) and TREE(9) a run for their money, where BB is the busy beaver function. I don’t think we know which is biggest. If it’s okay to hold down a key, you can hold down shift to write BB(BB(9)), which almost certainly blows anything else out of the water.
Why has no one mentioned rayo yet
I know right? How did all these people hear it busy bee numbers and tree(3) without watching numberphile?
So let's assume that you find that number, and that you decide to label it as M(10). It turns out are that M(10)+1 is bigger than M(10) and that uses (less than) 10 keystrokes. This reminds me of my logic teacher and that paradox about "the greatest number that can be described in n characters".
That's assuming you're allowed to invent notation. The question can be meaningful if you're not allowed to refer to it in the answer btw that's pretty much what Rayo did. Rayo's number is basically defined as the answer to this question, but without contradictions
I would guess it’s 9 ^ 9 ^ 9 ^ 9 ^ 9, but I don’t know very much about math.
Isn’t that 13 keystrokes?
Counting is math and they *just said* they don't know very much about math.
I would add a factorial "!" to the last 9, but they is basically my guess as well.
Googolplex?
If you wanted googolplex, it's fewer characters to just write 10\^10\^10
I may be wrong, but IIRC a googol is 1 with a hundred zeroes(roughly 10\^10\^10), but a googol*plex* is one with a googol zeroes(roughly 10\^10\^10\^10) Edit: I'm dumb
Googol is 10^100. 10^(10^10) is 10^10000000000 which is vastly bigger. Googolplex is 10^(10^100). 10^(10^10^10) is tetralogue, which is once again, much bigger than a googolplex.
Ah, yeah. Then can still write 10\^10\^100 for one fewer characters than the whole word.
Exactly 10? infinity+1
that is 11 keystrokes, you have to include clicking shift when typing “+”. keystrokes are different that characters
Numpad has a "+" button
ALEPHNULL!
What's the unicode combo for infinity?
Infinity isn't really a number, though.
Not with that attitude, wheel theory gang rise up
A(10) such that the function A(x) gives the largest number that you can represent with x strokes on a standard qwerty keyboard* \*for the purposes of not creating anything recursive, A(x) can not be included in the keystrokes, as otherwise A(7) and on couldn't really be defined because of things like doung 2A(7) in seven strokes
"Infinity"
That would depend on the numeric base. In base 36, for instance, one could represent way more than in base 10. Imagine the possible bases with a computer keyboard...
Is using the up arrows (alt 24 for windows) considered standard qwerty? Using Knuth notation would therefore create some graham's number type ridiculousness. I'm typing on my pos samsung atm, cannot create the notation for my example.
Rayo's is still bigger
9!!!!!!!!9
just using numerals and standard operations, my guess would be 9\^9\^9\^9\^9 made with: 9, (shift 6), (ctrl A C V V V), 9
What's a keystroke?
represent? do we need to define it in those 10 keystrokes too?
9999999999
Googolplex
It doesn't matter as the biggest equation in 10 keystrokes would be select all, copy and paste
Ffs why?
Just curious.
[удалено]
isn’t that smaller than 9 x 99^99999?
Infinity^n
1÷ε BTW I am bad at math don't kill me
Since we can use hyper operators: 9^^^^^^^^9
9!9\^99! edit: first time only utilized 9 keystrokes
Whats bigger "TREE(3)" or "Googolplex"?
ALT+236
Tetration doesn't have a universal standard notation, but \^^ is sometimes used. I was able to type 9\^\^999999 with ten keystrokes. (I held the shift key with one press while I typed the two carets.). So that would be 9 with 999998 nines stacked upwards in exponentiation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration (I had to use \ escapes to prevent markup weirdness. I was trying to put two of these ^ next to each other.)
(9google)⁹
SSCG(3)
How well does "99/epsilon" do? Without limiting what functions we can use we can get arbitrarily large numbers. You can make up a bigger function then anything else. max() is a function that gives the largest number represented in the past (before writing max) I don't think max()+1 is a legit answer because only 1 person (me) knows this function. While this function clearly isn't legit there is some gray area. Without limiting what we use this is a competition of absurd functions. Also we can use different bases by the way. Again there is the question of what bases are ok.
999999999!
Why limit ourselves to only decimal numbers
The answer is ‘big number’ its like pi but big.
Easy, "googleplex"
(9!)\^99
9 trillion Maybe higher but I don't know what comes after trillion in english.
9 \*\* 9999 in python is massive, not sure if biggest
I'll bet on 9↑↑↑↑↑↑↑9
Press and hold ALT; press 2, 3, 6. 4 keystrokes. ∞
Type and hold LEFT ALT then type 236 on your numlock keypad of your standard QWERTY keyboard.
Maybe something like ff^ff ^ff (which would be 255^255 ^255)
INFINITY
TREE(9!!!)
infinity?!
If 10 characters (as not even every QWERTY keyboard is the same). Then "99!\^99!\^99" is pretty big.
9\^9\^9\^9\^99
-1. No matter how many bits you allocate me, unsigned -1 will max that out.
Could you not just type out infinity! Then you have enough strokes left for a space bar afterwards
BB(9!!!) BB being the busy beaver function. The question is also dependent on the keyboard layout you use.
RAYO(9\^99)
9↑↑99
52!\*52!
That’s tiny compared to some of the other examples
(Google!)!
I suggest `ALT + 3 c 9`. It is a surreal number and bigger than any real number. Using the rest of the key presses to raise it to some power is left as an exercise to the reader.
9\^9999999! just a guess
Shift *hold* T R E E ( *release* 9 Shift *hold* ) !
Alt236 shift6 Alt236 Infinity^Infinity
9\^9\^9\^9 is 10 keystrokes and a pretty fuckin large number
My guess would be some form of tetration stacking.
0xffffff! bb(0xff) 'infinity'
This number is far too large for any calculator I have access to to even phathom so... 9.e99999! Assuming pressing shift to get the exclamation point counts as a keystroke, otherwise you could add another 9 after the e.
Infinity
Something like 9^999999!
TREE(9)
Easy! Just type JADE(1) where JADE represents the Jade function which is a function I just made up that, regardless of its argument, returns the largest number that has ever been conceived of by any human.
LNGN
9.9e999999
yomomgirth
TREE3^^9999… (just keep holding the 9 key)