3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3= ? but with 10 instead of 3 ( approximation, order of magnitude )
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow â notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.
I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....
Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3
Thanks
!âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ!
:)
big-numbers power-towers hyperoperation
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow â notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.
I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....
Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3
Thanks
!âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ!
:)
big-numbers power-towers hyperoperation
So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
â Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55
This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
â Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19
Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
â Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow â notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.
I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....
Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3
Thanks
!âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ!
:)
big-numbers power-towers hyperoperation
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow â notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10
3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.
I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....
Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ3
Thanks
!âÂÂâÂÂâÂÂâÂÂ!
:)
big-numbers power-towers hyperoperation
edited Aug 12 at 3:15
Simply Beautiful Art
49.4k572172
49.4k572172
asked Dec 21 '17 at 3:33
Norwin Munster
1
1
So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
â Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55
This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
â Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19
Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
â Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13
add a comment |Â
So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
â Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55
This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
â Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19
Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
â Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13
So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
â Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55
So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
â Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55
This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
â Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19
This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
â Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19
Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
â Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13
Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
â Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
$3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?
Now, we have
beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign
One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,
$$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$
where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.
The base case:
$$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$
The inductive case:
beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign
as claimed.
If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:
$$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
$3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
$3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
$3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.
For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
$3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.
answered Dec 21 '17 at 5:01
Ross Millikan
277k21187352
277k21187352
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?
Now, we have
beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign
One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,
$$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$
where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.
The base case:
$$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$
The inductive case:
beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign
as claimed.
If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:
$$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?
Now, we have
beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign
One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,
$$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$
where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.
The base case:
$$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$
The inductive case:
beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign
as claimed.
If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:
$$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?
Now, we have
beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign
One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,
$$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$
where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.
The base case:
$$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$
The inductive case:
beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign
as claimed.
If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:
$$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$
For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?
Now, we have
beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign
One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,
$$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$
where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.
The base case:
$$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$
The inductive case:
beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign
as claimed.
If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:
$$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$
answered Aug 12 at 3:56
Simply Beautiful Art
49.4k572172
49.4k572172
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2575271%2f3%25e2%2586%2591%25e2%2586%2591%25e2%2586%25913-but-with-10-instead-of-3-approximation-order-of-magnitude%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
â Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55
This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
â Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19
Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
â Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13