On May 22, 12:17 pm, Transfer Principle <david.l.wal...@lausd.net> wrote: > On May 21, 7:09 am, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassm...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > On May 20, 8:38 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > Actually it is NOT impossible to write numbers with more > > > than 10 different digits on MY pocket calculator, since my calculator, > > > an HP50g, can write numbers of up to sixteen hexadecimal digits and do > > > non-negative hexadecimal integer calculations up to that limit. > > Only goes to show you that WM has never seen a scientific calculator. > > Probably his does not even do roots. Hell, even the calculator in > > Windows 7 lets you input 32 decimals. > > But all that matters to this discussion is that there does exist a > natural number so large that no calculator can store it. One will > be hardpressed to find a calculator that can store Graham's number, > or even certain naturals much smaller than G. The exact size of > the upper bound doesn't matter -- all that matters is that an upper > bound exists.
I might add adding GRAHAMS NUMBER + GRAHAMS NUMBER has a very insignificant impact on its size, or atleast the scale of its size. As with GN*GN, GN^GN, GN^^GN, whatever ^^ may stand for at this moment in history!