+- Eagle Time (https://eagle-time.org)
+-- Forum: Archive (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Forum: BAWK BAWK (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=34)
+---- Forum: Hawkspace (https://eagle-time.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=35)
+---- Thread: good number hierarchy (/showthread.php?tid=2049)
good number hierarchy - qwerx3 - 12-13-2016
2000
is beaten by
2048 = 2^11
is beaten by
2^256 = 2^(2^8) = 2^(2^(2^3))
is beaten by
2^16 = 2^(2^4) = 2^(2^(2^2)) = 2^(2^(2^(2^1))) = 2^(2^(2^(2^(2^0))))
= 2 tetrated to the 4 = 2 tet (2 tet 2)
= 2 pentated to the 3
is beaten by
4
= 2 [anything] 2
RE: good number hierarchy - a52 - 12-13-2016
yes, I am in agreement.
the three hiding in 256 always bothered me, it was such a perfect number otherwise.
RE: good number hierarchy - Dragon Fogel - 12-13-2016
8658 is the best number.
6+28+496+8128 = 8658 (first four perfect numbers)
666*13 = 8658
RE: good number hierarchy - a52 - 12-13-2016
no.
first of all, that's only got a single 2 in there. it's just barely even.
second, what's so special about the first four perfect numbers? why not the first five? or first 100? it's completely arbitrary.
third, 666 is of no mathematical importance, and 13 is of very little. both are horribly ugly, 666 having far too many threes (and sixes, which I personally consider worse), 13 having no factors at all.
RE: good number hierarchy - Kíeros - 12-13-2016
So I'm guessing 7625597484987 is right out?
RE: good number hierarchy - btp - 12-13-2016
If it takes 2 to tango, how many tangos are in 4? 256?
RE: good number hierarchy - a52 - 12-13-2016
(12-13-2016, 05:22 AM)Kíeros Wrote: »So I'm guessing 7625597484987 is right out?
Well, it's better than say 7625597484988. But still nowhere near as good as anything 2^2^n.