←back to thread

BusyBeaver(6) Is Quite Large

(scottaaronson.blog)
271 points bdr | 1 comments | 28 Jun 25 16:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
fjfaase ◴[28 Jun 25 17:26 UTC] No.44406450[source]▶
I wonder if the visible universe is large enough to write down the exact value of BB(6).
replies(5): >>44406530 #>>44406577 #>>44406650 #>>44407515 #>>44409066 #
Scarblac ◴[28 Jun 25 17:34 UTC] No.44406530[source]▶
It's not.
replies(1): >>44406717 #
1. Alive-in-2025 ◴[28 Jun 25 17:54 UTC] No.44406717[source]▶
I want some easier to comprehend number for BB(6), in decimal notation. But it's such a massive number I would need to invent a new notation to express that. I love this new (to me) concept of tetration number representation. 10-million sub 10, what is the number?

Look at 3 sub 10 = which is (10^(10^10)). So that is 10 to the power of 10 billion. In regular decimal notation, that is a "1" with 10 billion "0"s following it. It takes 10 gigabytes of ram to represent the number in decimal notation, naively.

The number of atoms in the universe is only 10^80, or 1,000...000 (80 zeroes). 10-million sub 10 is so huge, how much ram to represent it.

This example is from https://www.statisticshowto.com/tetration-function-simple-de...