May 10th, 2015, 08:46 AM  #1 
Newbie Joined: May 2015 From: US Posts: 4 Thanks: 0  Are large numbers definable?
So I've been looking up large numbers lately and my question is, can we even define some of those? A lot of the information I read looking them up seems pretty inconsistent. For example, I remember seeing a page that prints out a googolplex on the screen, while there are supposedly more digits in it than atoms in the universe. Graham's number is another famous large number example, which seems to be defined/calculated differently based on where I look it up, same with larger numbers. Are large numbers simply difficult to comprehend? More importantly, do we know, or can we prove that numbers go on indefinitely? We can also ask questions like "does 2+2 always equal 4?" but that goes beyond mathematical theory I think. Is there a purpose to defining these types of large numbers? Take Graham's number for example, apparently it's defined by first having towers of exponents, than repeating those over and over, than repeating that over and over many many times and so on. Do these numbers serve a practical purpose or do people make them for the sake of having large numbers named? 
May 10th, 2015, 01:34 PM  #2 
Global Moderator Joined: May 2007 Posts: 6,254 Thanks: 507 
Your question seems more philosophical than mathematical. What is the point you are trying to make? Numbers go on indefinitely? Yes  proof by contradiction  if you think it stops, add 1 to the last one. 2+2=4 comes out of an axiom system for arithmetic. 
May 10th, 2015, 03:39 PM  #3 
Math Team Joined: May 2013 From: The Astral plane Posts: 1,570 Thanks: 613 Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timeywimey stuff. 
I don't see any reason to "throw away" large numbers. In Physics, though, we tend to scale things so all the action takes place about the origin. This is true for ridiculously small numbers as well. Dan 
May 11th, 2015, 08:15 AM  #4 
Newbie Joined: May 2015 From: US Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 
Not really throw them away, but define them more clearly I guess. At least it seems like really large numbers are defined differently sometimes. 
May 11th, 2015, 09:00 AM  #5 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 932 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms 
If you accept that there is some number $N$ such that all real numbers $x>N$ are "large" (maybe N is 100 or googolplex or Graham's number), then there are large numbers which are not definable. In fact, definable numbers are quite rare  there are only countably many out of an uncountable sea of real numbers. But if you accept that, say, all numbers between 0 and 1 are "small", then the same is true of small numbers. So it's not so much that some numbers are so large that they can't be defined, but rather that most numbers can't be defined at all, small or large. On the flip side, for any fixed $N$ there is a real number $x>N$ which can be defined  say, $\lfloor N\rfloor+1.$ Certainly googolplex and Graham's number are perfectly welldefined. 
May 11th, 2015, 10:08 AM  #6 
Global Moderator Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 17,440 Thanks: 1312 
So can one apply Cantor's diagonal procedure to the definable reals between 0 and 1?

May 11th, 2015, 10:36 AM  #7 
Global Moderator Joined: Nov 2006 From: UTC 5 Posts: 16,046 Thanks: 932 Math Focus: Number theory, computational mathematics, combinatorics, FOM, symbolic logic, TCS, algorithms  
May 11th, 2015, 06:16 PM  #8 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2006 From: Lexington, MA Posts: 3,267 Thanks: 406  I have no problem with large numbers. After all, most integers have billions of digits. 
May 11th, 2015, 09:40 PM  #9 
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 6,854 Thanks: 2228 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  
May 12th, 2015, 06:34 PM  #10 
Global Moderator Joined: May 2007 Posts: 6,254 Thanks: 507  

Tags 
definable, large, numbers 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Dividing Very Large Numbers  nogar  Elementary Math  1  March 14th, 2014 03:39 PM 
Law of Large Numbers and Expected Value  Tomi  Advanced Statistics  0  February 12th, 2014 01:00 PM 
The last two digits of LARGE numbers?  ricsi046  Number Theory  2  November 10th, 2013 06:31 AM 
Weak Law of Large Numbers  Artus  Advanced Statistics  0  January 29th, 2013 01:14 AM 
Law of Large Numbers and the Expected Value  jimmy  Advanced Statistics  4  July 18th, 2012 12:23 PM 