“The cardinality of infinity plus a few hundred would still be infinity” Then why not just use the previous system of appending novenonagintanongentillion repeatedly to also get a rule that is infinite? lol Gre(y)at video!
Wow, very nice. Quite a simple solution in the end! The only unfortunate thing is that you can't take this problem much farther, since you can't get a larger set of numbers than this. I suppose you could impose some more restrictions though, like that everything has to be integers.
I feel like, if you allow number names such as "the natural logarithm of novenonaginanongentillion", just because they evaluate to the correct value, then the solution of one thousand thousand thousand should also be valid. I think we'd first need to decide on a canonical language representation of most real numbers, otherwise there is just too much possibilities. Now, of course we can't give finitely long names to all real numbers, just by a cardinality argument, and infinitely long names won't be interesting because they will either diverge too fast or have to satisfy very specific conditions, with a finitely long suffix holding the entire value of the expression and the infinite prefix evaluating to one.
You could argue that we don't need to name all real numbers, since this problem is interesting on integers as well, so maybe we should just pick a specific countably infinite subset to name canonically?
This is a great point, there are a lot of possibilities for naming numbers and it’s difficult to draw the line at what is ‘acceptable’. For that reason, I like the solution from my original video more - the one that generates 547 fairly standard integers. Perhaps my main goal of this video is to show that this is a infinite solution IF you’re willing to accept it. That’s also true for repeated thousands but it would’ve made for a less interesting discussion.
all i understand is that
s = 23
e = 3
x = 1
LMAO !
Naaaah 😂😂😂
This is cool,
Crazy how the ln of such an incomprehensibly large number wouldn't even qualify as a MegaFavNumber... Logarithms just don't grow fast enough for that!
“The cardinality of infinity plus a few hundred would still be infinity”
Then why not just use the previous system of appending novenonagintanongentillion repeatedly to also get a rule that is infinite? lol
Gre(y)at video!
The system without logarithms doesn’t work unless you write the numbers in some form like nove^nonagintanongentillion
@@TheGrayCuberCan't believe I found a fellow who also greatly interested in both Maths and Cubing (and blind cubing). I can't believe my luck!
Wow, very nice. Quite a simple solution in the end! The only unfortunate thing is that you can't take this problem much farther, since you can't get a larger set of numbers than this. I suppose you could impose some more restrictions though, like that everything has to be integers.
This is actually crazy
*novemnonagintanongentillion 🤓☝️
Millillion😂😂😂😅😅😅😅
I feel like, if you allow number names such as "the natural logarithm of novenonaginanongentillion", just because they evaluate to the correct value, then the solution of one thousand thousand thousand should also be valid. I think we'd first need to decide on a canonical language representation of most real numbers, otherwise there is just too much possibilities.
Now, of course we can't give finitely long names to all real numbers, just by a cardinality argument, and infinitely long names won't be interesting because they will either diverge too fast or have to satisfy very specific conditions, with a finitely long suffix holding the entire value of the expression and the infinite prefix evaluating to one.
You could argue that we don't need to name all real numbers, since this problem is interesting on integers as well, so maybe we should just pick a specific countably infinite subset to name canonically?
This is a great point, there are a lot of possibilities for naming numbers and it’s difficult to draw the line at what is ‘acceptable’. For that reason, I like the solution from my original video more - the one that generates 547 fairly standard integers.
Perhaps my main goal of this video is to show that this is a infinite solution IF you’re willing to accept it. That’s also true for repeated thousands but it would’ve made for a less interesting discussion.
Can you still do solve rubiks cubes blind folded?
Yeah I'm still able to, but I don't find it interesting anymore.
that's totally fair @@TheGrayCuber
Also, it keeps that one = 1.
Thanks for mentioning this, I had not noticed that!