4 ms·
I think what the author is trying to get across is that BB(10000) would beat any large number generated through "conventional" means. From the article: > BB(5)
by bhelkey 8y ago
I think what the author is trying to get across is that BB(10000) would beat any large number generated through "conventional" means.
From the article:
> BB(5) ≥ 47,176,870
> BB(23) > Graham’s number[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number
- remcob 8y agoHow about BB(BB(10000))? I would call that conventional means, well-defined notation, etc. And I can keep going in this direction, creating ever larger numbers. (In fact, if space permits, I could define this sequence and then take the BB(10000)th element of this sequence.)
- Sharlin 8y agoOf course you can go up the hierarchy, but BBⁿ(10000) is not "generated through conventional means" unless you take BB(10000) as given. And the point was that you're not given that.