DaEpikDude wrote:

red_king_cyclops wrote:

The number zero divided by any number.

See how I just started a debate?

do you mean any number divided by zero?

Yes, that's what I meant. Seeing as the quotient is infinity, what I wrote doesn't count.

And I actually don't mean to start a debate. Sorry about that.

red_king_cyclops wrote:

DaEpikDude wrote:

red_king_cyclops wrote:

The number zero divided by any number.

See how I just started a debate?

do you mean any number divided by zero?

Yes, that's what I meant. Seeing as the quotient is infinity, what I wrote doesn't count.

And I actually don't mean to start a debate. Sorry about that.

Technically that could either be an incredibly large number (shooting off to positive infinity) or it could be an incredibly small number (going down to negative infinity) but you can just take the absolute value and the world is now solved I think

Apparently the largest number that is finite is “oblivion.” I could say some number as an expression using oblivion, such as oblivion to the power oblivion, but someone might one-up me. So the largest number is:

x+1

let x=the largest number posted on this thread other than x+1

red_king_cyclops wrote:

Apparently the largest number that is finite is “oblivion.” I could say some number as an expression using oblivion, such as oblivion to the power oblivion, but someone might one-up me. So the largest number is:

x+1

let x=the largest number posted on this thread other than x+1

how about:

n + 2
where n is equal to the value of x + 1

9999999999999/0

ideapad-320 wrote:

9999999999999/0

NaN

-(log(0))

TREE(3)

i think you might know the code add stuff to the define block

i present
from the imac of micro_bitty
googolplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplexplex (thats 100plexes)
10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^(10^100)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
or 1 followed by a heck ton of 0s

put that into scratch, python, java or any other language
returns infinity
aka very big
but not infinity

legomanrhett wrote:

I know this has been done before, but lately I have been interested in some pretty huge numbers. I would like to see some community input on big numbers, as I am attempting to make my own large number notation.When I say “Large” numbers, I mean like Graham's Number, Tree(3), etc. not looking for numbers like 1,000,000 or even Centillion (10^303).

i think sscg(3) is bigger than tree(3) and theres some number called aleph null thats bigger than infinity or something idk number are confusing

the biggest number is infinity + 1 duh /j

i was reading into large numbers and i swear everything i find is hilarious
i read about “large number battles” and all i can imagine are two professors from some of the most significant colleges in the world breaking their wrist writing hundreds of zeros on a chalkboard, fighting like a star wars scene
please- this is golden

bump - i do NOT get googology. someone please explain why i can't just go “ultimatum sigma epsilon supernova bucharest kinshasa supercluster omega big huge biggest number infinity infinite number no end” and be crowned the biggest number man?? everyone's saying fancy things like “tree(3)” and graham's number and i'm just wondering why graham's number is the largest number (according to various sources) and not “graham's number + 1”

what is a beaf? what is a jonathan bowers?? i'm looking at the googology fandom wiki and it just seems like all the numbers have random naming conventions, like nobody is taking this whole ordeal seriously. i mean, it's hard to really take these things seriously when there are people doing all these fancy algorithms i don't understand, and then naming them “Quadruple Stacker King”, “Spicy Whopper Melt”, “Bronquelmingaspegolapule”, “BBQ Bacon Whopper”, “Bacon and Cheese Whopper”, “Triple Whopper Jr. With Cheese” and an entire group of numbers which are literally just named “whopper” except the ‘o’ is replaced by increasingly absurd vowels, like "The Whipper, The Wheeper, The Whapper, The Whowper and the Whupper“, among other silly goofy goober names. for such a complicated field of maths, there really are some things that i just find ridiculous.

how do these naming conventions work?? at the start of the large number spectrum, you get trillions, quadrillions, quintillions, sextillions, septillions - these all make perfect sense, because they're affixed with their respective number's prefix. but then, you devolve into names that sound like they're from a crappy sci-fi series written by an obscure author that sold a grand total of 4 copies. i can understand the fact that these numbers are too big to assign and visualise for those not in the know, and i understand that a lot of these numbers utilise fancy set theory graph ordinal things to define them, but really, i cannot FATHOM the fact that there are GENUINE numbers called such things as schmitty, BBQ bacon king and triple stacker king, as well as whatever the heck extensions are, named after various organs in the human body.

how do these NAMING conventions work????? are you just spinning a wheel with random bk menu items written on the sectors and going ”nobody cares about this anyways so might as well“ just for some random person in a dark australian bedroom to write four paragraphs of how confusing the name you randomly picked with no regard of the previous rules established in that field is?? it's literally TWO MINUTES AFTER MIDNIGHT and i am here just being incredibly confused because these super smart googologist people decided to go ”hmm you know what would be cool?? naming something in an incredibly obscure field of mathematics TRUNGULUS.“ like frfr what is going on and why is it so goofy?? i do not understand the point these people are trying to make, if any, by going to a field of maths with incredible room for expansion due to its obscurity, and planting a flag that says ”i hereby certify this patch of grass as property of McRib". this is the worst experience of my life

also, i would like to share an extremely funny picture i found browsing the googology fandom wikia thing idk what they even call it now

10^10^303 > Also Known As Ecetonplex

Biggest FINITE number: none besauce you can always use a function to increase the number.

Thanks to the TPLL (Theoretically Possible Levels List, an unofficial Geometry Dash levels list) I can now confidently say that I know at least a little bit about Googology.

Lol the oblivion numbers are not well defined. Any countable ordinal can be inputted into the fast growing hierarchy to get a large number, so at a certain point, it is just about finding the largest ordinals and cardinals. This isn't the largest number I know, but (0,0,0,0)(1,1,1,1) in BMS is extremely large. If talking about cardinals, the Berkeley cardinal is very large also. This is extremely complex stuff, so unless if you study googology, you wont understand.

@B0o0lean
The picture is from the page for the Xi function. Anyways, those silly named numbers are usually salad numbers, which are numbers which use functions already defined and are usually created by beginners to googology. There is no largest number. If a site claims that, they are lying. If you want to create a large number, you need a definition. You can't say that something is the largest number without proof.