I invented a new number, how do i describe it in math?

[Souper]

It's going to be called the Grahgol.

Imagine the graham's number describing the amount of 0's behind a single 1.

Now, i want to know how to write that down without losing my sanity.

(Graham's number = 3 3

[shynung]

Ten to the power of 33 (10³³) ?

Derped. Ignore me.

Edited October 10, 2014 by shynung

[stupid_chris]

Something like this:

10 to the power of graham's number, which is not 33, but (3, g64 uparrows, 3)

[ZetaX]

Naming numbers without good reason is worse than naming sand grains, and just as useless/random...

[Superfluous J]

[stephenhawking]

I already saw that number. I call it a Hawking Number

[/stephenhawking]

[/futurama]

[lukeoftheaura]

[cantab]

To my limited understanding Graham's number is well past the point where x and 10^x might as well be the same in the grand scheme of things.

[Acemcbean]

There is only one problem with this: generally, when one names a number, they have a good reason for it. You simply thought up an equation, solved it, and declared you had discovered the number.

[ZetaX]

Graham's number, for example, is just a number for which his proof (regarding a Ramsey-type problem on hypercubes) works. The actual number he published it with is much smaller, g_64 was not published by himelf. And the optimal bound is even smaller, it might even be possible to write it down in decimals.

[KerikBalm]

I invented a new number, It's going to be called the GrahGOOOAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL.

Its graham's number to the power of Graham's number.

I await the publication of this number in a math journal.

You simply thought up an equation, solved it, and declared you had discovered the number.

Ummm I don't think he did that, or he wouldn't be asking "how do i describe it in math? " and "i want to know how to write that down without losing my sanity."

[ZetaX]

Well, he wanted a number with a 1 followed by g_64 0s. That defined the number (and is as good a description as 10^g_64). Lacking any good definition of what exactly "equation" should mean here, I would default to a "property" instead, and one is given by the previous sentence.