What is the biggest number?

::: spoiler Image transcription

“what is the biggest number”

AI Overview

The biggest number in the world is so big that mathematicians don't even think it exists.

Top 5 biggest numbers, according to me.

  1. 5
  2. 1 Million
  3. 100 Billion
  4. 999 Trillion
  5. Brazillian
    :::

Original post: https://xcancel.com/ChatgptLunatics/status/1995441330986598532

528 points · 85 comments · view on lemmy.world

85 Comments

panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 69 pts · 259d (18 replies)

It's true. If you ask a mathematician what number is the biggest they won't give you a straight answer.

Like, what even is an aleph?

prime_number_314159@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 259d (8 replies)

In set theory, sets containing an infinite number things are relatively easy to describe. For example, "All the counting numbers" is a set with an infinite number of things in it.

Many sets with an infinite number of things have a one to one correspondence to each other, meaning that we can describe a function that takes elements of one set as an input, gives elements of the other set as an output, and spans both sets - no element is skipped on either side.

"All the even counting numbers" has a one to one correspondence with "All the counting numbers". You can look into Hilbert's Hotel for a good demonstration of how this works.

Not all sets with an infinite number of things correspond with the set of all counting numbers, because some are fundamentally bigger. This difference in size doesn't happen just once (e.g. there are countably infinite sets, and uncountably infinite sets, and that's all we need to know), there are actually an infinite number of sets of progressively bigger infinite numbers of elements.

Because this is a confusing mess, we needed a way to keep track of how infinitely big each infinitely big set is, and the aleph cardinalities are the preferred way to do that. Any set with cardinality of aleph zero (aka "aleph null") has a one to one correspondence with any other set with cardinality aleph zero. The same is true for every other aleph cardinality. Two sets of cardinality aleph thirty seven have a one to one correspondence with each other.

Anyways, busy beaver(tree(aleph omega)) is the biggest number.

tyler@programming.dev · 17 pts · 259d (5 replies)

Pretty sure they were being sarcastic. I mean they know the word aleph which strongly indicates they know what sets of infinite numbers are.

Scubus@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 258d (1 reply)

Is mayonnaise a number?

fartographer@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d

No, dumbass. Mayonnaise is two numbers.

jambudz@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 258d (2 replies)

Bet > aleph

zedgeist@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d (1 reply)

Gimel > bet

jambudz@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 256d

I love me some chocolate coins.

in_the_dark_forest@feddit.org · 3 pts · 258d (1 reply)

Now I went down a rabbit hole reading about aleph and tree(3). I did not even study math why do I do this to myself...

solomonschuler@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 257d
[ removed ]
abfarid@startrek.website · 10 pts · 259d

-ant! Finish your words, it's not that hard!

jambudz@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 258d (6 replies)

There is no biggest number. By virtue of the real numbers (the largest orderable set) being unbounded, for every number in R you can find a number larger. You can also find a number smaller for any number.

davidagain@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d (5 replies)

Indeed, but OP was referencing aleph_0 and aleph_1 etc, the cardinality of the integers and the reals respectively.

jambudz@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 258d (4 replies)

Bet is bigger

davidagain@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d (3 replies)

Well, with aleph_0 being the smallest infinity and aleph_1 being the second smallest known infinity, I can't pretend to be surprised.

jambudz@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 258d (2 replies)

Aleph is U2135, bet is U2136. Is biggerer

davidagain@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d (1 reply)

Paradoxically, the empty set is U+2205.

THEY ARE PLAYING US FOR ABSOLUTE FOOLS!

jambudz@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 256d

OH MY SWEET SATAN! The empty set is bigger than the first two orders of infinity

RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 258d

They'll say there's no such thing, and that's why we have concept of Infinity.

Ryanmiller70@lemmy.zip · 50 pts · 258d

Deadeyegai@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 259d

Jerb322@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 258d (2 replies)

I heard there was a earthquake in Rio de Janeiro. The casualties were in the Brazilians.

driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br · -7 pts · 258d (1 reply)

Pretty unlikely to have an earthquake in Rio de Janeiro.

Edit: you people need to check the number of recording earthquakes on Rio de Janeiro.

canofcam@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 257d

it was a joke mate

Randelung@lemmy.world · 29 pts · 258d (1 reply)

OK but that's hilarious.

VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 22 pts · 258d

This is the AI I want. Like pure early day chaos where Will Smith couldn't eat spaghetti, that Forever Seinfeld on twitch, the weird recipes like 80lbs of salt.

Object@sh.itjust.works · 20 pts · 259d (4 replies)

Every time I see one of those AI fuckups and try it myself, it never works :/

GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml · 27 pts · 259d

It's pretty easy to fake one using the developer tools in your browser.

underisk@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 259d

They aren’t deterministic. There are a few common ones that are cached, but if you get bad (or good?) RNG in the response generation you’ll never manage to get the same result as someone else.

CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 258d

I asked the Brave search AI thing and it said this:

what is the biggest number

There is no largest number because the set of natural numbers is infinite; for any number you can think of, adding one produces a larger number. While infinity is often mentioned, it is not a number but an abstract concept representing boundlessness.

Among named numbers, a googol ( 10^100 ) is a 1 followed by 100 zeros, and a googolplex ( 10^googol ) is 1 followed by a googol of zeros, making it vastly larger than a googol. The googolplex is so large that writing it out would require more space than the observable universe contains.

However, even larger numbers exist in mathematical contexts. Graham's number, used in a proof in Ramsey theory, is significantly larger than a googolplex and was once considered the largest number used in a legitimate mathematical proof. It is so immense that it cannot be expressed using standard scientific notation and requires special notations like Knuth's up-arrow or Conway chained arrow notation.

Other extremely large numbers include TREE(3), which grows faster than any primitive recursive function and is independent of weak arithmetic systems, and Friedman's SSCG(3), which is much larger than TREE(3). The Busy Beaver function produces numbers that are uncomputable and exceed any computable function.

Rayo's number is defined as "the smallest positive integer bigger than any finite positive integer named by an expression in the language of first-order set theory with a googol symbols or less" and is considered one of the largest named numbers. Similarly, BIG FOOT is a number proposed as even larger than Rayo's number.

In summary, while numbers like a googolplex are often cited as the largest named numbers, mathematical constructs such as Graham's number, TREE(3), and Rayo's number are vastly larger and demonstrate that there is no upper limit to how large a number can be.

No idea if that's accurate or not but it sounds legit lol.

ayyy@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 258d

The lesson you should take away here is that unsourced screenshots on social media are always fake and made up.

xep@discuss.online · 20 pts · 258d (2 replies)

That's Numberwang! It's time to rotate the board.

Swaus01@piefed.social · 2 pts · 257d (1 reply)

It's so funny that Webb and Mitchell made that sketch, clearly poking fun at the tradition of gameshows in the UK, only for David Mitchell to end up marrying Victoria Coren, the host of Only Connect.

I wonder if it came up during a date, and she forced him to pledge allegiance to only connect.

blimthepixie@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 257d

He's also been on WILTY for yonks.

In fact I've seen episodes where they've both been on

potatoguy@lemmy.eco.br · 17 pts · 259d (9 replies)

i'm sorry tree(3)

TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 259d

ahem.

Brazillian?

Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 259d (1 reply)

Best I can do is 3.50.

mtpender@piefed.social · 10 pts · 259d

"God damn Loch Ness monster!"

meco03211@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 259d (2 replies)

I always liked Graham's Number. I didn't like that it was TREE(1)=1, TREE(2)=3, and TREE(3) dwarfs even Graham's Number. At least G=g_64 which is built up from g_1.

Gork@sopuli.xyz · 8 pts · 259d (1 reply)

TREE(g_64)

meco03211@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d

Motherofgod.jpg

recklessengagement@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 259d (2 replies)

You just sent me down a rabbit hole learning about TREE(3), thank you

tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip · 17 pts · 258d

To be fair, there are a ton of people living in Brazil. There are like, Brazillians of them.

Rooster326@programming.dev · 14 pts · 258d (5 replies)

BIG if true

webp@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 258d (4 replies)

How big?

davidagain@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 258d (3 replies)

1 Brazillian.

No, 1 Hollywood.

PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.space · 4 pts · 258d

Underrated comment.

dan69@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 258d (1 reply)

Not even Bro-zillian*

davidagain@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 258d

Username checks out.
Whatever floats your boat, mate!

Kolanaki@pawb.social · 12 pts · 258d (2 replies)

Infinity... times two.

undergroundoverground@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 258d

Tbf, some infinities are bigger than others.

humorlessrepost@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 258d

Infinity times three no comebacks

AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 258d

I want a Brazilian dollars lol

postcapitalism@lemmy.today · 10 pts · 258d

Honestly this is a great answer

lemmywinksthegerbilking@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 258d (2 replies)

I was looking for doc's age in the movie...

luciferofastora@feddit.org · 3 pts · 257d (1 reply)

Aren't there some time travel shenanigans? Maybe they account for six extra years

groucho@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 257d

He goes to a de-aging health spa in part 2, which further complicates things.

PrimeMinisterKeyes@leminal.space · 9 pts · 258d

"Pick a number - any number - between one and one Brazilian. Don't tell me the number. Now multiply it by 3..."

MeowerMisfit817@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 258d (2 replies)

Well, guess I am a number now

LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 258d (1 reply)

I always knew I could count on you

MeowerMisfit817@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 258d

valeu broder, é nóis 👍

renegadespork@lemmy.jelliefrontier.net · 8 pts · 258d (3 replies)

This is likely fake, but still funny. I just tried it and got a reasonable answer.

GenosseFlosse@feddit.org · 16 pts · 258d

Could still be real. Ai will give different answers to the same question.

kromem@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 258d

It's quite plausibly real. Gemini can def get in shitposty basins and has historically had a fairly inconsistent coherence across samples.

sudoer777@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 258d

Posting responses like these is a mainstream social media trend, so probably

rodneylives@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 258d (1 reply)

24 is the highest number.

24 is the highest number.

Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYyS0L0uJ7A

DylanMc6@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 258d

i DIDN'T expect a mr. show fan here

Little8Lost@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 258d

Biggest signed 32 bit integer i can do gets to 2038

Harvey656@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 258d

If this is real an unedited... maybe ai wasnt a mistake

friend_of_satan@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 258d
[ removed ]
TurdBurgler@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 258d

Garbage in, garbage out

greedytacothief@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 258d
Skanky@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 258d

80085

groucho@lemmy.sdf.org · 5 pts · 258d (3 replies)

Here's a fun game: ask gemini to accurately represent all digits in the largest number possible with a 64-bit float. So far I've gotten 0,000 and a 65,013-digit number that's mostly zeroes.

Lemminary@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 258d (2 replies)

Interesting. This is what ChatGPT came up with which at least sounds plausible:

The largest finite value representable in an IEEE-754 64-bit (double precision) float is

Its exact decimal expansion (all digits) is:

179769313486231570814527423731704356798070567525844996598917476803157260780028538760589558632766878171540458953514382464234321326889464182768467546703537516986049910576551282076245490090389328944075868508455133942304583236903222948165808559332123348274797826204144723168738177180919299881250404026184124858368

(309 decimal digits).

Commonly shown in scientific notation: approximately
1.7976931348623157 × 10^308 (this is the usual rounded display).

groucho@lemmy.sdf.org · 10 pts · 258d (1 reply)

That ... is doing a lot of the heavy lifting. Insist on accuracy in all 309 places and see what happens.

Then ask it to find the prime factors.

edit: it's not about getting the right answer. it's about hurting computers.

Lemminary@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 258d

I would but I don't have the depth of knowledge for this. I just wanted to see if it'd spit out some nonsense. 😅

Krudler@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 258d (3 replies)

The biggest number is TREE(3)

Lemminary@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 258d (2 replies)

TREE(3) + 1

#gottem 😎

funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 258d (1 reply)

TREE(TREE(3)+1)

boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 258d

no

jlow@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 258d

Haha, my partner also does this when I ask what's you're favourite X its never just one thing, its ALLWAYS a list of things.

betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 258d
[ removed ]
DylanMc6@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 258d

24

dan69@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 258d

6

YaGirlAutumn@leminal.space · 3 pts · 258d

I thought the biggest number was one morbillion