Large numbers

I mentioned an extremely large number in this comic, and then talked a little about comparing it to another large number in this blag post. But all the numbers discussed had a sense of arbitrariness to them. The xkcd number was just a function that grew rapidly plus a large argument. I’ve been thinking about it, and I want to construct a number that is not only mind-bogglingly large, but elegantly large. This is hard to define — the closest I can get is that it shouldn’t feel arbitrary.

Now, as some have pointed out, noncomputable functions like the Busy Beaver function can grow faster than any computable function. By my understanding, this just means they have a higher computational complexity — their values for a little bit may be smaller than a computable function, but you can never prove that, for sufficiently large arguments, a computable function is an upper bound to the sequence.

I decided I wanted to express the largest number I could in about 32 characters, something akin to the MIT big number duel. Here’s what I came up with:


In the first half (before the semicolon) I’m defining an operator H, which transforms a function F and an argument n into an n-level recursive call to itself (I’m using F^n() to refer to F(F(F( … recursed n times … ))) as in derivatives. That is, H{} represents the process of n-level recursion. Then I use this recursion several times on the Busy Beaver function until I run out of space. This isn’t just four recursions — each new H{} is a virtually infinite set of recursions, since it has as many levels as the result of the number in the level below it. As the seed, I picked 9 — the largest integer you can fit in a single digit.

I’m a lot happier with this number’s ‘bigness’ than I was with A(g_64, g_64). It feels bigger, in some hard-to-describe way (it also feels bigger in the easy-to-describe way: “>”). It uses a more fundamental idea of bigness It’s also, of course, noncomputable. However, you can stick the Ackermann function in place of the Busy Beaver function and get a number that is again much larger than the xkcd number.

So, anyone want to define an elegantly bigger number in about 32 characters, invoking reasonably standard notation and functions? I’m sure it’s possible — it’s not a well-defined contest, and I’m sure there are a lot of other tricks you can use. But at least I’m finally satisfied with my entry.

Edit: As a number of commenters have pointed out, my notation here is pretty bad.  I’m indeed using H{} more like a macro that acts on an expression than a transform that acts on a function, and this leads to difficulties in mixing the levels.  Fortunately, you guys have waded through the fog and understood what I was getting at 🙂

Here’s a slightly simplified expression that does the same thing and tacks in two extra recursions (so as to use the 32 characters).  It loses the generality I was going for, but it’s more compact and not ambiguous:


0 thoughts on “Large numbers

  1. e been reading your blog for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Houston Texas! Just wanted to say ke mosuldar you tubed afraiedshed nice to very muched


  2. r blog for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout ou nouster agaleshed nice to very muched tramped afraideshe nice to ınplledised


  3. Here’s a slightly simplified expression that does the same thing and tacks in two extra recursions (so as to use the 32 characters). It loses the generality I was going for, but it’s more compact and not


  4. Unquestionably believe that which you whispered. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the web the easiest thing to be aware of.


  5. pengobatan tradisional, since tan(pi) = infinity & lim (x-1)/x as x -> infinity = lim x/x as x -> infinity = 1 then wouldn’t your number be tan({pi}(A(g_64,g_64)-1)/A(g_64,g_64)) where n = A(g_64,g_64)
    PS {pi} is the pi symbol


  6. Scott and I both came up with the same, even larger solution. Using unique letters, except for the BB(n) function, which is replaced with B(n) as to be the same character length.

    Proof that G(n)=B^n(n);F(n)=G^n(n);F(F(9)) > H(n)=B^n(n);H(H(H(H(H(H(9))))))
    1. The first step in the original algorithm recurses to
    H(9) = B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(9)))))))))
    2. The first step in the new algorithm recurses to
    F(9) = G(G(G(G(G(G(G(G(G(9)))))))))
    3). The second step is to resolve this into a stacked B(n) notation, the first iteration of which is solvable:
    B(9) = B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(9)))))))))

    As line 3 is of the same complexity of line 1 (Line 1 == Line 3), we look at how many iterations each of this is stacked. The original function:
    H(H(H(H(H( Line 1 )))))
    And line 2:
    G(G(G(G(G(G(G(G( Line 3 ))))))))
    Which are of comparable complexity (that is, H(n) == G(n))
    Thus the new statement is of 5 orders of magnitude larger.


  7. Typo in Line 3.

    B(9) = B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(9)))))))))
    Should be
    G(9) = B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(B(9)))))))))


  8. Nine months later….

    Nerdy: You never defined what F(n) was. Entry is invalid.
    Magtovi: Rayo’s number is self-recursive, paradoxical, and doesn’t count. Rayo’s Number, by definition is larger than Rayo’s Number on account that Rayo’s Number is expressable with 13 characters, ergo Rayo’s Number is 1 more than itself.

    Rayo’s Number isn’t simply non-computable it does not have a finite value.


  9. Draco18s: Nerdy’s problem isn’t that he fails to define F(n), he defines it as a function which H accepts as argument. His problem is instead infinite recursion, as he fails to provide an ending point. As I understand his notation, his definition of H includes a function call to H with the same argument initially supplied.

    Let’s use Graham’s notation. If Graham’s number, G, is g_64, then g_(g_64) (or g_(G)) would be the Graham’s numbered iteration of Graham’s function (Parenthesis optional and provided for clarity). Since I’m uncomfortable with noncomputable functions, I will just recurse this a few times, with the original xkcd number as starting point.


    There, 32 characters, unambiguous and difficult to definitely pronounce smaller than any other of the worthy entries here.


  10. What about the works of Jonathan Bowers, such as numbers like “gongulus” or “golapulus” or “meameamealokkapoowa oompa”? Smaller than Rayo’s by far, bigger than Graham’s by far, … and computable!


  11. i really enjoyed to visit this is a very nice site and i book mark ur site.

    This is a nice content with lots of information. It’s a very excellent idea for raising money for charity. I think honest review is more important for authors. I like your whole discussion. Keep it up.
    Keep blogging.ur site is good.and finelly ur site going to in high position

    This is a really good read for me. Must agree that you are one of the coolest blogger I ever saw.
    Thank you for this very interesting infographic ! I’m talking about Google Venice on my blog.


  12. One of the modern methods to increase community awareness of the Internet. Nowadays, the Internet has been a very good position in this field achieved.
    I’m up for being in a particular field, your information will go to the Internet. Because this method is very simple and reliable. Glad that the visitor field increases conversancy There are sites that.
    Thanks for a very nice content site


  13. It seems that many organization and personal marketing emails are going on digitally nowadays. It is often much easier to write a quick email or send a brief text than to get in touch with someone on the cellphone. the truth on cellulite