Almost all numbers have a 3 in them.

[Mackenzie]

I don't think that's true unfortunately - or certainly not my understanding of infinity which is v limited. I think it's the same infinity as it's the infinity of counting numbers and the reason it's the same is because it's one-dimensional. You're just stretching out the same infinity. I seem to recall reading the next level of inifinity was thought to be the number of points in the 3 dimensional universe (which is incidentally the same number of points in a sugarcube).

Christ knows how these people that do this as a day job stay sane.

Internet porn and pot noodles. Probably.

 

[Brovion]

I don't think that's true unfortunately - or certainly not my understanding of infinity which is v limited. I think it's the same infinity as it's the infinity of counting numbers and the reason it's the same is because it's one-dimensional. You're just stretching out the same infinity. I seem to recall reading the next level of inifinity was thought to be the number of points in the 3 dimensional universe (which is incidentally the same number of points in a sugarcube).

Christ knows how these people that do this as a day job stay sane.

I dunno, my nephew pointed it out. Actually he didn't, it was my daughter who'd seen a programme about it and where they mentioned 'different infinities' and that was how they explained it apparently, but hey, she's a music student!

But yeah, it's a fascinating subject as is all science and I wish I hadn't been quite so thick at school. (I did social sciences: economics, politics and sociology. Almost anyone can do those).

 

[Grombleton]

Bugger me that is big!

My name is Graham, and yes a lot of people say that to me.

 

[Buzzer]

The point about Graham's number is not that it's the largest possible number (it clearly isn't) but it's the largest number that has figured in a mathematical proof

Ronald Graham is an interesting bloke: he didn't only just come up with his number, he's also a juggler and invented the concept of the Erdős number. And for anyone interested in maths, the Paul Hoffman book about Erdős, The Man who Loved Only Numbers is well worth a read

Thanks for the recommendation. Have you ever heard of Trachtenberg? He was a Russian architect who discovered simple ways to solve very big mathematical equations, so simple you can do them in your head. This was whilst being held in a Nazi concentration camp.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Having spent two hours trying to help my 13 year old with LOGGER RYHEMMMS I need a fecking

 

[Gwylan]

Thanks for the recommendation. Have you ever heard of Trachtenberg? He was a Russian architect who discovered simple ways to solve very big mathematical equations, so simple you can do them in your head. This was whilst being held in a Nazi concentration camp.

Thank you for recommendation: I've never heard of Trachtenberg but he sounds like someone who's worth checking out

 

[Govinda Tim]

And then once you've got your head around the infinity of counting numbers, there's the idea that there are other more complex infinities. Far beyond my ken, I get lost trying to get my head around Graham's Number but if you're interested this infinity is called aleph-null.

I got Aleph Null cookies in Cookie Clicker.
http://orteil.dashnet.org/cookieclicker/

 

[SeagullSongs]

Having spent two hours trying to help my 13 year old with LOGGER RYHEMMMS I need a fecking

Your 13 year old is doing logarithms?

I didn't encounter logarithms until I was 17!

 

[Gwylan]

Your 13 year old is doing logarithms?

I didn't encounter logarithms until I was 17!

I don't think that's unusual. I'm certain we were using log tables at 12 or 13: I'm sure we started in Year 2 of secondary school (it might even have been year 1). Our log table books were well used by the time we sat our O Levels - not just for logs but for trigonometric tables too

 

[SeagullSongs]

I don't think that's unusual. I'm certain we were using log tables at 12 or 13: I'm sure we started in Year 2 of secondary school (it might even have been year 1). Our log table books were well used by the time we sat our O Levels - not just for logs but for trigonometric tables too

Hmm.. Logs aren't part of the GCSE syllabus anymore, but they're part of A-level.

 

[Buzzer]

I don't think that's unusual. I'm certain we were using log tables at 12 or 13: I'm sure we started in Year 2 of secondary school (it might even have been year 1). Our log table books were well used by the time we sat our O Levels - not just for logs but for trigonometric tables too

Likewise. Introduced to them in my 3rd year at Durrington High, the year before our O levels.

 

[Triggaaar]

I also like the idea that some infinities are 'bigger' than others. For example if you just count in whole numbers 1, 2, 3 etc obviously that sequence is infinite. But if you count in decimals, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 .... 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 ...... 3.0, 3.1 etc then that series is also infinite, but it's a 'bigger' infinity than the whole number series!

No it isn't.

 

[Brovion]

I don't think that's unusual. I'm certain we were using log tables at 12 or 13: I'm sure we started in Year 2 of secondary school (it might even have been year 1). Our log table books were well used by the time we sat our O Levels - not just for logs but for trigonometric tables too

Yeah, we started on logs and anti-logs from my second year at Secondary school so I'd have been 12 when I first encountered them.

 

[Brovion]

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes it is.

Can you explain why you think so.

 

[Brovion]

Can you explain why you think so.

Yes

 

[Dick Head]

A googal is only 1 with a 100 zeros. A googalplex is so much bigger, it's a 1 followed by a googal amount of zeros.

Mind blowingly big.

Someone above mentioned Graham's Number, this number makes googalplex look like an absolute pussy, it's sooooo big it is hard to imagine in your head how big it really is!

A googolplexian is a 1 followed by a googolplex of noughts.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes

I didn't think so.

 

[Brovion]

I didn't think so.

Well you think wrong.

 

[Triggaaar]

Well you think wrong.

Or maybe you think wrong. You could always post your explanation. Or maybe you can't. But assuming you won't, I'll just have to assume you can't.