Any number you want, by the flawed logic of your question.
2007-05-04 02:47:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is the kind of question that you can't answer within the bounds of logic. It reminded me a cool little paradox that goes like this:
Consider S, the set of all numbers that can be expressed as a sentence in the English language of no more than a thousand letters. For example, "This is the number of legs of a common dog." would describe the number 4.
Since there are a finite number of letters, this set must be finite. Therefore, there must exist some numbers that cannot be expressed as a sentence of the English language of no more than a tousand letters.
Now, consider the sentence:
"This number is the smallest positive integer that cannot be expressed as a sentence of the English language of no more than one thousand letters."
Clearly, this number exists. The set (N - S) is nonempty (because S is finite) and therefore must have a smallest element x.
The above sentence sentence describes x precisely - demonstrating that x can be described in 1000 letters or less. Therefore x is an element of S... but wait, we just said that x is an element of (N-S)... wha buh huh what??!?
Has your head exploded yet?
2007-05-04 03:04:27
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well, you could start off with 999 duotrigintillion, 999 untrigintillion, and keep going down the line. The duotrigintillion (10^99) was the largest named number that I could find with a quick search.
2007-05-04 03:09:35
·
answer #3
·
answered by dogsafire 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would post the number but then I would get banned/deleted for flooding.
2007-05-04 02:52:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Matt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
infinity
or is that just really a concept
2007-05-04 03:34:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by quntmphys238 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
infinity
2007-05-04 03:22:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by skcs11 7
·
1⤊
1⤋