Posts: 2,165
Joined: Jun 2016
Pronouns: he and stuff
Location: UTC-8
12-13-2016, 04:23 AM
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
A character on fire WOULDN'T say "I am cold."
Offline
Posts: 4,286
Joined: Jan 2016
Pronouns: officially she
Location: the woods
RE: good number hierarchy
12-13-2016, 04:28 AM
yes, I am in agreement.
the three hiding in 256 always bothered me, it was such a perfect number otherwise.
Posts: 10,065
Joined: Jul 2011
Pronouns:
Location:
RE: good number hierarchy
12-13-2016, 04:28 AM
8658 is the best number.
6+28+496+8128 = 8658 (first four perfect numbers)
666*13 = 8658
A character on fire WOULDN'T say "I am cold."
Offline
Posts: 4,286
Joined: Jan 2016
Pronouns: officially she
Location: the woods
RE: good number hierarchy
12-13-2016, 04:34 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-13-2016, 03:16 PM by a52.)
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.
Posts: 3,214
Joined: Mar 2013
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Location: ρ(∂v/∂t+v•∇v)= -∇p+∇•T+f
RE: good number hierarchy
12-13-2016, 05:22 AM
So I'm guessing 7625597484987 is right out?
Posts: 3,941
Joined: Nov 2011
Pronouns:
Location:
RE: good number hierarchy
12-13-2016, 10:35 AM
If it takes 2 to tango, how many tangos are in 4? 256?
A character on fire WOULDN'T say "I am cold."
Offline
Posts: 4,286
Joined: Jan 2016
Pronouns: officially she
Location: the woods
RE: good number hierarchy
12-13-2016, 03:18 PM
(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.