JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I think I may have found the biggest number available. Here are my workings out. Please let me know how to submet this to a journal
dimreepr Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I think I may have found the biggest number available. Here are my workings out. Please let me know how to submet this to a journal why not your number plus 1?
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 why not your number plus 1? I don't really want to go into my workings out, incase somebody copies my theory, sorry. But this is the highest number
dimreepr Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I don't really want to go into my workings out, incase somebody copies my theory, sorry. But this is the highest number How then do you hope to gain credability?
md65536 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 That's pretty big. At a glance, it certainly looks bigger than anything I've come across as a professional mathematician, but without knowing how you arrived at the number I can't be certain that it's the biggest. You'll probably have to publish your methods. If you're correct, it could be a pretty important finding.
imatfaal Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Well I have actually used considerably larger numbers than that. Although I did try phoning it and only got the BT ansaphone service.
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Well I have actually used considerably larger numbers than that. Although I did try phoning it and only got the BT ansaphone service. Larger number then 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,148? NO CHANCE That's pretty big. At a glance, it certainly looks bigger than anything I've come across as a professional mathematician, but without knowing how you arrived at the number I can't be certain that it's the biggest. You'll probably have to publish your methods. If you're correct, it could be a pretty important finding. Thanks, I think it could be pretty big aswell. When I was working out the findings, I could feel some sort of energy around me. I knew it was gonna be a more significant project then usual.
insane_alien Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 what about the avagadro constant? biggest number? aye right.
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 what about the avagadro constant? biggest number? aye right. I don't know what the avocado constant is, sorry. can you scientifically demonstrate a bigger number? I don't think so I don't know what the avocado constant is, sorry. can you scientifically demonstrate a bigger number? I don't think so I meant the avagrado. autocorrect in action ther! 1
Daedalus Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Have you ever heard of the Ackermann function? The numbers produced by this function can easily become larger than your 22 digit number. Also, a googolplex [math]10^{10^{100}}[/math] is by far larger than your number and only uses a one and a whole bunch of zeroes. We even know about prime numbers larger than your number: http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html The largest known prime from 2008 is [math]2^{43112609}-1[/math] and has 12978189 digits. Edited February 1, 2012 by Daedalus
Phi for All Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I don't really want to go into my workings out, incase somebody copies my theory, sorry. Why would they copy your theory? What benefit does knowing this number bring? But this is the highest number The highest number for what? Anything? We actually have more atoms in our body than that. Isn't 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,149 a little higher than 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,148? Wouldn't your theory be falsified if there was even one number higher than yours? You mentioned that your number had no numbers 1-6, yet there are 1s and a 4, which you read as "ten" and "fourteen". What's the significance of that?
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Have you ever heard of the Ackermann function? The numbers produced by this function can easily become larger than your 22 digit number. Also, a googolplex [math]10^{10^{100}}[/math] is by far larger than your number and only uses a one and a whole bunch of zeroes. We even know about prime numbers larger than your number: http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html The largest known prime from 2008 is [math]2^{43112609}-1[/math] and has 12978189 digits. "12978189 digits" 12978189 is a smaller number then 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,148 Why would they copy your theory? What benefit does knowing this number bring? The highest number for what? Anything? We actually have more atoms in our body than that. Isn't 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,149 a little higher than 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,148? Wouldn't your theory be falsified if there was even one number higher than yours? You mentioned that your number had no numbers 1-6, yet there are 1s and a 4, which you read as "ten" and "fourteen". What's the significance of that? ten and fourteen are clearly higher then numbers 1-6? -1
Daedalus Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 "12978189 digits" 12978189 is a smaller number then 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,148 That's just the count of the digits making up the number and not the number itself. Your number only has 22 digits.
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 That's just the count of the digits making up the number and not the number itself. Your number only has 22 digits. Lets agree to disagree, Science is about sharing ideas
Daedalus Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) This prime number is bigger and has 100 digits: 7,212,610,147,295,474,909,544,523,785,043,492,409,969,382,148,186,765,460,082,500,085,393,519,556,525,921,455,588,705,423,020,751,421 This prime number is even bigger yet with 200 digits: 40,992,408,416,096,028,179,761,232,532,587,525,402,909,285,099,086,220,133,403,920,525,409,552,083,528,606,215,439,915,948,260,875,718,893, 797,824,735,118,621,138,192,569,490,840,098,061,133,066,650,255,608,065,609,253,901,288,801,302,035,441,884,878,187,944,219,033 This prime number is bigger than your number and it's a palindrome: 742,950,290,870,000,078,092,059,247 Edited February 1, 2012 by Daedalus
insane_alien Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I don't know what the avocado constant is, sorry. can you scientifically demonstrate a bigger number? I don't think so the avagadro constant is the number of atoms in 12 grams of Carbon-12
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 This prime number is bigger and has 100 digits: 7,212,610,147,295,474,909,544,523,785,043,492,409,969,382,148,186,765,460,082,500,085,393,519,556,525,921,455,588,705,423,020,751,421 This prime number is even bigger yet with 200 digits: 40,992,408,416,096,028,179,761,232,532,587,525,402,909,285,099,086,220,133,403,920,525,409,552,083,528,606,215,439,915,948,260,875,718,893, 797,824,735,118,621,138,192,569,490,840,098,061,133,066,650,255,608,065,609,253,901,288,801,302,035,441,884,878,187,944,219,033 This prime number is bigger than your number and it's a palindrome: 742,950,290,870,000,078,092,059,247 But all these numbers you've provided are not proper numbers. Plus I did all the calculations and none of these numbers were the answer -1
michel123456 Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 the avagadro constant is the number of atoms in 12 grams of Carbon-12 Avogadro
Daedalus Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Not a proper number? You just made 7,212,610,147,295,474,909,544,523,785,043,492,409,969,382,148,186,765,460,082,500,085,393,519,556,525,921,455,588,705,423,020,751,421 cry :'( The answer to what? The meaning of life?
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Not a proper number? You just made 7,212,610,147,295,474,909,544,523,785,043,492,409,969,382,148,186,765,460,082,500,085,393,519,556,525,921,455,588,705,423,020,751,421 cry :'( The answer to what? The meaning of life? The answer to "what is the biggest number of all time"??? I thought this was clear? -1
Daedalus Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Well, if the numbers I have listed are bigger than your number, then clearly your number is NOT the biggest number of all time. Oh... prime numbers are probably more proper than yours. Edited February 1, 2012 by Daedalus
JTuffnell Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Well, if the numbers I have listed are bigger than your number, then clearly your number is NOT the biggest number of all time. Oh... prime numbers are probably more proper than yours. but you have no proof? -2
Daedalus Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Here is that link you missed: http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html http://primes.utm.ed.../page.php?id=14 Ooo.... this one is huge: http://www.math.utah...largeprime.html I can keep this up all day. If you are interested in large numbers than visit this site: http://www.mersenne.org/ They love to prove that these large numbers are primes. Edited February 1, 2012 by Daedalus
insane_alien Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 try your number minus any of the numbers we've posted. if the answer is less than zero then your number is not the biggest number.
Recommended Posts