« first day (62 days earlier)      last day (1436 days later) » 

00:40
@Deedlit I see you like some anime
01:39
@Deedlit Man, its very hard for me to understand some of the ordinal collapsing functions, since my understanding of the logic symbols is horrible
 
1 hour later…
Ovi
Ovi
02:55
@SimplyBeautifulArt Which logic symbols are you talking about?
@Ovi Too much stuff nested together, it is all very complicated, as it is the first time I've seen such symbols
Ovi
Ovi
ah
yeah I've been trying to read it for 5-10 minutes
it's very difficult xD
XD
Madore's psi function
I understand that one due to working with it
(God lord save us when we put this stuff in the fast growing hierarchy)
03:35
@SimplyBeautifulArt Yeah, dense mathematical notation can be very difficult at first
Please tell me if there's anything I can help you with
meh. Perhaps a resource
Have you seen my series of blog posts on OCFs?
I believe so? (?)
oh, no I haven't
Thanks!
 
16 hours later…
Xam
Xam
19:59
Hello (?)
Hello (!)
Xam
Xam
Hello @FineMan first time I see you here xd
Why thank you Good Sir, @Xam. :)
I was formerly @SirJony
So you might've seen him.
Xam
Xam
Yeah I think so :)
Can I ask you something?
Sure. You just did.
;)
Xam
Xam
20:13
What are your areas of interest in mathematics?
@Xam hey man
Haha
You look lonely @Xam
Xam
Xam
Oh hello @SimplyBeautifulArt
Yeah, I can't find people who is interested in abstract algebra xD
@Xam -- Well, I frankly don't know. I'm not planning to pursue a math degree, so I'm probably not into math as others. However, I do like geometry (I'm currently trying to solve a puzzle given to me by a mathematician). But I really can't wait until I learn Taylor series.
@FineMan is not even at that course yet sadly @Xam
Nope. No abstract algebra for me. :)
20:15
@FineMan really? You can't wait?
Xam
Xam
Oh I see :/
@Xam well
Did I already tell you about large numbers?
Once I done with solving those darned limits I'll fly through differentiation and get to Taylor.
@FineMan and why wait? =D
Oh
Xam
Xam
Anyways, can I ask you both of you a problem?
20:16
Never mind
Sure @Xam
Xam
Xam
@SimplyBeautifulArt no, you didn't
In return, can I ask you about large numbers?
Xam
Xam
You can tell me about large numbers :)
Large numbers are more or a story IMO
@Xam -- I've heard enough of @SimplyBeautifulArt and his large numbers, ask us your problem. :)
20:20
But anyways, while you ask us your problem, I ask you: "what is the largest number you could write on a sheet of paper?"
Xam
Xam
Well, this is something basic but I can not figure out the formal argument. Let's say we have a matrix $ M $ such that there is exactly one $ 1 $ in each column and in each row. Then $ M $ is a square matrix.
Lol @FineMan
Xam
Xam
XD
Ok, continue
@Xam -- I don't have the answer, but some reducto ad absurdum might make the proof simplier.
20:21
Oh, wait, that's it?
I assumed so. :P
Isn't it just a one by one matrix by definition?
Xam
Xam
Sorry, the matrix is $mxn$.
I don't understand the question then
Xam
Xam
Here is my idea: if we count by rows we have $m$ 1's and if we count by columns we have $n$ 1's, then $m=n$. Is that right?
20:23
I think he means
0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
Xam
Xam
Lol
Yes, exactly @FineMan
(replace 0's with random nums)
Xam
Xam
We have to prove that $m=n$.
Maybe.
Hold on. I'll BRB.
Xam
Xam
My idea was to use double counting. Count by rows and by columns.
20:25
It looks trivial, but I don't know what proofs are
Xam
Xam
@SimplyBeautifulArt what does "what is the largest number you could write on a sheet of paper?" mean?
I mean try to write the largest number you can on a sheet of paper. For example, 100000000!!!!!!!!
(Factorial = !)
You may also use any made up function as long as you properly define it
Xam
Xam
Well, I suppose I can take googol!
But that definitely doesn't use the full paper
(Hint: use superultramegahyperoperations)
20:30
Lmao, great description @FineMan
Or just hyperoperations. Your choice. :)
Xam
Xam
Then I don't know how to make such a large numbers xD
What are "hyperoperations"?
I didn't know until Simply told me yesterday.
Here comes the description... drumroll for Simply!!!
The first hyperoperation is addition
The second is repeated addition, or multiplication
The third is ... Which is exponentiation
The fourth is... Repeated exponentiation
Etc.
Mildly large numbers come out of this
@Xam Do you know ordinals and fundamental sequences?
Xam
Xam
20:33
So that is an iteration of addition, multiplication and exponentiation?
Yes
it is repeated operations of the previous operation
hence the name hyper-operation
Xam
Xam
Nope, I don't know :(
Well, we can actually produce numbers larger than anything you could feasibly represent in hyperoperators
Xam
Xam
Using ordinals?
Do you have MathJax running @Xam ?
Xam
Xam
20:35
Yes
Yes, using ordinals. =D
Xam
Xam
Ordinals like $\omega$?
Yes.

Well, we have a function defined as follows:

$f_0(n)=n+1$

$f_{\alpha+1}(n)=\underbrace{f_\alpha(f_\alpha(\dots f_\alpha(n)\dots))}_{n\ f_\alpha's}$

$f_\alpha(n)=f_{\alpha[n]}(n)$
Basically, we define $\omega$ as follows:

$\omega=\sup\{1,2,3,\dots\}$
Then $\omega[n]$ is the nth term of it's defined sequence
For example, $\omega[3]=3$
Now, the fun part. First of all, for whole numbers $k$, we have
$$f_k(n)\approx H_{k+1}(n,n)$$
where $H_k$ is the $k$th hyperoperator with $k=0$ being $a+b$.
We then have, using our $\omega$,
$$f_\omega(n)=f_{\omega[n]}(n)=f_n(n)$$
Still not too bad. You can still approximate this in terms of hyperoperators. But then we have
Xam
Xam
And that function produces large numbers?
$$f_{\omega+1}(n)=\underbrace{f_\omega(f_\omega(\dots f_\omega(n)\dots))}_n$$
@Xam Yes, would you like to see an explicit example?
20:41
Hate to interrupt all these dollar signs, but how do you activate MathJax in chat?
Xam
Xam
That's something interesting :D
I use that script
@Wojowu Hi, explaining the FGH to some pepes
Xam
Xam
I supposed to be better than Robjohn's script
It's supposed*
A small demonstration:
$$f_{\omega+1}(3)=f_\omega(f_\omega(f_\omega(3)))=f_\omega(f_\omega(f_3(3)))\approx f_\omega(f_\omega(H_4(3)))$$
What browser do you use?
20:43
Chrome
Xam
Xam
@SimplyBeautifulArt what is FGH? I can't figure out.
Opera
@Xam Fast growing hierarchy
Xam
Xam
Ah I see xd
Note that $$H_4(3)=3^{3^{3^3}}$$
Xam
Xam
Yeah?
20:44
$$\approx10^{3\text{ trillion}}$$
OMG! No more dollar signs in chat!! :D
@FineMan I KNOW!!! BEST THING EVER
Xam
Xam
FGH is related to "computability theory, computational complexity theory and proof theory"
Yes, it is very useful
Xam
Xam
Wow, that's something I would like to learn
@SimplyBeautifulArt how did you learn all that?
20:45
Now notice that $$f_\omega(f_\omega(3))\approx f_\omega(10^{3\text{ trillion}})$$
YouTube plus Wikipedia. And I didn't learn ALL of that
Xam
Xam
@FineMan it's great, right?
$$=f_{10^{3\text{ trillion}}}(10^{3\text{ trillion}})$$
So we saw that $f_3(3)$ was humongous, right?
(@Wojowu Actually, I think I may have done a small calculation error lol, but they get the point)
Xam
Xam
Yes, that's right :D
It's epic. And does this work on other sites?
So This is humongous
20:47
Not just SE?
@FineMan Yes, it works on any page. Very funny when you go to some economy page with all the dollar signs hehe
LOL.
And we're not even done! This is only $f_\omega(f_\omega(3))$. We want to take the $f_\omega$ of that!
And so this is fairly large, but it gets worse
Xam
Xam
So you can get something like HUMONGOUS, right?
@Xam Do you know Graham's number?
Xam
Xam
20:49
No, tell me about it
$$f_{\omega+1}(64)>\text{Graham's number}$$
Xam
Xam
Wow xd
I'll leave that story for another day, since we're already way past Graham's number
Consider the following:
$$f_{\omega+2}(3)=f_{\omega+1}(f_{\omega+1}(f_{\omega+1}(3)))$$
Xam
Xam
Ok, no problem
Lol, no problem indeed, because we may as well just go straight to $\omega+k$, right?
Xam
Xam
20:50
what happens if we use $2\omega$? Can we?
Well, we have $\omega2=\sup\{\omega+1,\omega+2,\omega+3,\dots\}$
Thus,
$$f_{\omega2}(3)=f_{\omega+3}(3)$$
Likewise,
$$f_{\omega3}(3)=f_{\omega2+3}(3)$$
Xam
Xam
What about $\omega^{\omega}$?
etc. you get the main idea
... these $\omega$s are ringing a bell from a vid I watched long ago. When do you get to $\aleph$?
Whoa whoa, hold up, we need to define our numbers!
@FineMan That's a completely different type of number, so it can't compare
20:52
I saw a VSauce video on very big numbers. I recall none of it but I do remember there were a lot of greek and hebrew letters. :)
First,
$$\omega^2=\sup\{\omega,\omega2,\omega3,\omega4,\dots\}\\2\omega^2=\sup\{\omega^2+\omega,\omega^2+\omega2,\omega^2+\omega3,\dots\}$$
@FineMan Ah, yes... very large numbers. How to count past infinity.
Xam
Xam
Oh, I got it.
In general, if we have, say, $3\omega^5$, we split it up into $2\omega^5+1\omega^5$, then "diagonolize"
I think I'll watch it again one day, but @Xam might want to see it soon: youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88
Diagonolizing is just the process where we write it out and take the nth term for our function's purposes.
@FineMan Xam already knows his ordinals I think
20:55
Oh. OK. Whatever ordinals are. :P
Anyways, we may finally reach @Xam 's proposal.
$$\omega^\omega=\sup\{\omega,\omega^2,\omega^3,\omega^4,\dots\}$$
Xam
Xam
I read something about ordinals, but I haven't studied it properly.
Poof. I think the universe exploded.
Xam
Xam
@SimplyBeautifulArt lol
But we can go further!
First, I need to define some rules.
Xam
Xam
20:56
Yes, do it!
$$\omega^{\omega+1}=\omega^\omega\times\omega$$
$$=\sup\{\omega^\omega \times1, \omega^\omega \times2, \omega^\omega \times3,\dots\}$$
Sorry, the MathJax starts to break if I don't put spaces in the coding XD
The key: Always reduce! Then diagonolize!
Now, we can safely do things like this:
$$\omega^{\omega^\omega}$$
Xam
Xam
And so on right?
When we have things in the exponents that don't reduce down to 'ground level', we must diagonolize the exponents first
Xam
Xam
I see
$$\omega^{\omega^\omega}=\omega^{ \sup\{\omega, \omega^2, \omega^3,\dots\}}$$
Xam
Xam
20:59
@FineMan youtube.com/watch?v=uWwUpEY4c8o you might like this
Clearly, we are going to have a crazy time trying to diagonolize this. Anyways, we move on to the next 'level'
This level when put into the fast growing hierarchy produces functions that grow so fast, you can't do basic PA with it:
$$\epsilon_0=\sup\{\omega,\omega^\omega, \omega^{\omega^\omega},\dots\}$$
And then we have our first fixed-point.
$$\omega^{\epsilon_0}=\epsilon_0$$
Funny point in the storyline, because it's not too hard to get past this.
$$\omega^{\epsilon_0+1}=\omega^{\epsilon_0}\omega=\epsilon_0\omega$$
Xam
Xam
Epsilon zero? nice
We then diagonolize the omega out, which gives us a sum of $\epsilon_0$, which we then diagonolize one by one (and remember folks! Whenever you can, reduce the fast growing hierarchy down by turning it into repeated iterations of itself (see rule 2))
Anyways, we can then produce a higher ordinal!
$$\epsilon_1=\sup\{\epsilon_0+1, \omega^{\epsilon_0+ 1}, \omega^{\omega^{\epsilon_0+ 1}}, \dots\}$$
Xam
Xam
That's amusing!
Anyways, just absorb how absurdly large this number is after you put it into the fast growing hierarchy
Of course, we move on.
$$\epsilon_2=\sup\{\epsilon_1+1, \omega^{\epsilon_1+ 1}, \omega^{\omega^{\epsilon_1+ 1}}, \dots\}$$
We keep doing this until we reach $\epsilon_\omega$,
$$\epsilon_\omega=\sup\{ \epsilon_0, \epsilon_1, \epsilon_2,\dots\}$$
Xam
Xam
21:06
Is HUMONGOUS?
moral of the story at this step. You diagonolize the inside part first. Then work your way out, which is how we diagonolize something like this:
$$\epsilon_{\epsilon_0}=\epsilon_{\sup\{ \omega, \omega^\omega,\dots \}}$$
Xam
Xam
Interesting.
Diagonolize and diagonolize until you can't, then turn, say, the $\epsilon_{\omega+1}$ into $\omega^{\omega^{\epsilon_\omega+1}}$
@FineMan You good there man? XD
@projectilemotion Hey, glad you could stop by lol
Xam
Xam
And so on, right?
@SimplyBeautifulArt Hey, how are you?
21:09
Anyways, we reach a totally higher level now:
$$\zeta_0=\sup\{\epsilon_0, \epsilon_{\epsilon_0},\epsilon_{\epsilon_{\epsilon_0}}, \dots\}$$
@projectilemotion I'm doing good, you?
Xam
Xam
Wow
@Xam And so, we end up with a thing known as Veblen Hierarchy
@SimplyBeautifulArt Not bad, thanks
Which keeps this going forever
Xam
Xam
I see
21:10
Well, not forever. You kind of stop at $\omega$, because that is like forever, but not, if you get what I mean
And this is where I stop and say Veblen Hierarchy is not enough
Xam
Xam
Yeah, I got it
Because you can actually produce ordinals so large, they don't fit inside Veblen hierarchy
I believe, in terms of Mor's ordinal collapsing function, the supremum of all (small) Veblen hierarchy is $\psi(\Omega^\omega)$
Which, as you can see, is some pretty compact notation that conveys an unsettling powerful message
Xam
Xam
That's amazing.
Well, there is an upper bound to $\psi(\alpha)$ though. That is where we introduce $\psi_1(\alpha)$
And you can see where the story goes
Xam
Xam
Yes
Thanks for talk about these topics.
21:14
If you wish, I can try to explain the ordinal collapsing function, though its going to be much harder than Veblen hierarchy (I think, it was for me)
No problem XD
Xam
Xam
Well, right now I have no time :(
XD yes, of course. I too wish to do a something else
Xam
Xam
Actually, I have to go out
because these large numbers give me small headaches
Cya man!
Xam
Xam
But, would you allow to post my problem here, maybe someone can help me.
21:16
Yes, please repost lol
56 mins ago, by Xam
Well, this is something basic but I can not figure out the formal argument. Let's say we have a matrix $ M $ such that there is exactly one $ 1 $ in each column and in each row. Then $ M $ is a square matrix.
Someone please help @Xam with his problem. Please and thanks!
Xam
Xam
Oh thank you!
No problem :-)
@Xam Has no one answered it on the main chat?
Xam
Xam
$M$ is a $m\times n$ matrix. So basically the problem ask to show that $m=n$.
I think @FineMan got lost in the forest above. Maybe I should go back and find him
Xam
Xam
@SimplyBeautifulArt I was too embarrassed to ask xd :(
Well, I gotta go!
Xam
Xam
See you later guys. Have a nice day!
@SimplyBeautifulArt -- Sorry, some bears chased me down the wrong path. Fortunately I knew the way out of the forrest.
Haha, glad to hear you are alive!
Missing a leg and a half, but all-in-all, just fine.
;)
Tis but a scratch
 
2 hours later…
23:20
@Xam -- I watched that Hydra vid. Very cool!
@FineMan This is the intro to large numbers
24 videos of large number madness XD

« first day (62 days earlier)      last day (1436 days later) »