ConwayLife.com

the lifestroyer wrote: December 8th, 2020, 11:50 pm um 100^^pi?

not a number (real tetration is illdefined)

There is a canonical complex tetration

fluffykitty wrote: December 12th, 2020, 6:12 am There is a canonical complex tetration

Where?

Moosey wrote: December 12th, 2020, 9:41 amWhere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration#Complex_heights
https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/2009- ... 2188-7.pdf
http://myweb.astate.edu/wpaulsen/tetration2.pdf

A for awesome wrote: December 12th, 2020, 12:44 pm

Moosey wrote: December 12th, 2020, 9:41 amWhere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration#Complex_heights
https://www.ams.org/journals/mcom/2009- ... 2188-7.pdf
http://myweb.astate.edu/wpaulsen/tetration2.pdf

huh

bump

prao's sin(2^e) contains 8 chars, lifestroyer's 100^^pi only contains 7.
Assuming this is a real rule violation and not just a misunderstanding/typo, the new number is i (the imaginary unit).

bubblegum wrote: January 7th, 2021, 1:42 am bump

prao's sin(2^e) contains 8 chars, lifestroyer's 100^^pi only contains 7.
Assuming this is a real rule violation and not just a misunderstanding/typo, the new number is i (the imaginary unit).

Rules:

Each post should describe a real number with a string of ASCII characters (no Unicode allowed), in standard English and/or mathematical language.

Hdjensofjfnen wrote: January 7th, 2021, 1:44 pm

Rules:

Each post should describe a real number with a string of ASCII characters (no Unicode allowed), in standard English and/or mathematical language.

…well then.

Hdjensofjfnen wrote: January 7th, 2021, 1:44 pmEach post should describe a real number with a string of ASCII characters (no Unicode allowed), in standard English and/or mathematical language.

But does real mean having no complex parts or meaning an actual number, as opposed to bajillion?
If the former is correct, then my number shall be 5. If the latter is correct, then my number shall be 78.

MathAndCode wrote: January 7th, 2021, 3:50 pm But does real mean having no complex parts or meaning an actual number, as opposed to bajillion?

No complex parts, as being an actual number is also a (rather superfluous as a bajillion is not a real number) rule. Also, pi.

bubblegum wrote: January 7th, 2021, 7:18 pmpi

266

MathAndCode wrote: January 7th, 2021, 8:36 pm 266

49^2

creeperman7002 wrote: January 7th, 2021, 8:40 pm49^2

That can be expressed using fewer characters as 7^4.
The new number shall be 9.

MathAndCode wrote: January 7th, 2021, 8:43 pm The new number shall be 9.

G1 (3^^^^3 apparently, but since this is the Conway's Game of Life forum let's use his notation 3>3>4).

bubblegum wrote: January 7th, 2021, 8:53 pmG1

e^7

MathAndCode wrote: January 7th, 2021, 8:56 pm e^7

8^^6

creeperman7002 wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:13 pm 8^^6

sin 1 (radians)

bubblegum wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:16 pmsin 1

87^588

bubblegum wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:16 pm sin 1 (radians)

Are spaces counted as characters? If so, no rule violation. If not, then this is a new game:
e

creeperman7002 wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:20 pme

29

MathAndCode wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:29 pm

creeperman7002 wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:20 pme

29

Spaces count as characters. (Never use more than one space in a row, though, and don't insert them to dodge substrings.)

bubblegum wrote: January 7th, 2021, 9:48 pm Spaces count as characters. (Never use more than one space in a row, though, and don't insert them to dodge substrings.)

That means your post in the last game didn't violate any rules, so it is OK to continue that one.

bump (I actually quite like this game, unlike many others that people generally just accept as dead after a certain while)
FFF(12) (FFF(k) is the googological finite Kruskal's theorem function, equal to tree(k+1), the weak tree function)

does anyone know what tree(13) is even equal to

bubblegum wrote: March 28th, 2021, 2:45 am does anyone know what tree(13) is even equal to

according to the relevant googology wiki page, tree(4) (the lowercase, weak one) is already greater than g64; thus it is fairly apparent that tree(13)'s value would be ridiculously difficult to determine precisely, and that even formulating a lower bound could be difficult

as for upper bounds, tree(13) is less than TREE(3) as a trivial consequence of the lower bound for TREE(3) in terms of tree.

Anyway my new number is 10111001 (base 10) which is apparently prime and thus *should* be ok

Moosey wrote: March 28th, 2021, 8:41 pm 10111001

2*4444547 (I think this works)