DominionStrategy Wiki
Quote from: Donald X. on October 28, 2014, 04:29:33 pm...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.But not strictly better, because the spinoff can have a different cost than the expansion.
...spin-offs are still better for all of the previously cited reasons.
Well you *do* need a signature...
Donald X has the distinct disadvantage of not posting any more. Unless people go and give DXV a bunch of respect now, theory should likely win.
Looks like someone boosted Donald to 3000!
Quote from: Schneau on September 17, 2013, 07:30:57 pmLooks like someone boosted Donald to 3000!Wow, 3000 factorial is a big number...
Quote from: scott_pilgrim on September 17, 2013, 07:35:50 pmQuote from: Schneau on September 17, 2013, 07:30:57 pmLooks like someone boosted Donald to 3000!Wow, 3000 factorial is a big number...[all the digits of 3000!][jaw drop picture]
Quote from: scott_pilgrim on September 17, 2013, 07:35:50 pmQuote from: Schneau on September 17, 2013, 07:30:57 pmLooks like someone boosted Donald to 3000!Wow, 3000 factorial is a big number...4.15*109130ish[jaw drop picture]
Really sudgy? Five digits in between spaces??
Quote from: Jimmmmm on September 18, 2013, 10:56:07 amReally sudgy? Five digits in between spaces??That's quite common for large numbers generated by computer.
"All advice is awful" —Count Grishnakh
Graham's number is so big that even the number of layers of calculation in the first and smallest of the 64 terms in its calculation literally could not fit in the known universe, assuming each digit occupied at least one Planck volume.
Quote from: theory on September 18, 2013, 04:16:47 pmGraham's number is so big that even the number of layers of calculation in the first and smallest of the 64 terms in its calculation literally could not fit in the known universe, assuming each digit occupied at least one Planck volume.So in other words, it's entirely useless and meaningless?
Quote from: Kirian on September 18, 2013, 04:28:24 pmQuote from: theory on September 18, 2013, 04:16:47 pmGraham's number is so big that even the number of layers of calculation in the first and smallest of the 64 terms in its calculation literally could not fit in the known universe, assuming each digit occupied at least one Planck volume.So in other words, it's entirely useless and meaningless?Well the number wasn't defined arbitrarily. It's special because it's the answer to a problem in Ramsey theory, and was described as the largest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof. So there's meaning to it beyond its incomprehensible largeness.
Quote from: theory on September 18, 2013, 04:45:46 pmQuote from: Kirian on September 18, 2013, 04:28:24 pmQuote from: theory on September 18, 2013, 04:16:47 pmGraham's number is so big that even the number of layers of calculation in the first and smallest of the 64 terms in its calculation literally could not fit in the known universe, assuming each digit occupied at least one Planck volume.So in other words, it's entirely useless and meaningless?Well the number wasn't defined arbitrarily. It's special because it's the answer to a problem in Ramsey theory, and was described as the largest number ever used in a serious mathematical proof. So there's meaning to it beyond its incomprehensible largeness.Whoa there, it wasn't the answer, it was just an upper bound. The answer to that question is not expected to be anything like Graham's number.