[JTuffnell]

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]

JTuffnell, on 1 February 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

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

http://www.youtube.c...=1&feature=plcp

why not your number plus 1?

[JTuffnell]

dimreepr, on 1 February 2012 - 06:44 PM, said:

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]

JTuffnell, on 1 February 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

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]

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]

Well I have actually used considerably larger numbers than that. Although I did try phoning it and only got the BT ansaphone service.

[JTuffnell]

imatfaal, on 1 February 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

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

md65536, on 1 February 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

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]

what about the avagadro constant?

biggest number? aye right.

[JTuffnell]

insane_alien, on 1 February 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

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

JTuffnell, on 1 February 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

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!

[Daedalus]

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 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 and has 12978189 digits.

This post has been edited by Daedalus: 1 February 2012 - 07:31 PM

[Phi for All]

JTuffnell, on 1 February 2012 - 06:48 PM, said:

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?

Quote

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]

Daedalus, on 1 February 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

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 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 and has 12978189 digits.

"12978189 digits"


12978189 is a smaller number then 7,987,987,778,981,078,910,148

Phi for All, on 1 February 2012 - 07:25 PM, said:

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?

[Daedalus]

JTuffnell, on 1 February 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:

"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]

Daedalus, on 1 February 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

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]

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

This post has been edited by Daedalus: 1 February 2012 - 07:56 PM

[insane_alien]

JTuffnell, on 1 February 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

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]

Daedalus, on 1 February 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

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

[michel123456]

insane_alien, on 1 February 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

the avagadro constant is the number of atoms in 12 grams of Carbon-12

Avogadro

[Daedalus]

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]

Daedalus, on 1 February 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

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?