Such a squandering of Knuth arrows! Why pentate a pentation with a pentation when you can hexate?! Doesn’t 3^^^^3 just overwhelm you with the scope of its incomprehensibility? Or an escalation from the third Ackermann number (3^^^3) to the fourth (4^^^^4) hammer home the scope of the increase with a sense of elegant continuity?
I love Conway’s notation too. Seriously elegant and naturally extensible. But why did you choose to represent 2 ^^^ 5? That’s not especially big. Did you mean 2 → 3 →5 (ie. 2 ^^^^^ 3)?
Idle question: which is bigger, (3^^^3)^^^(3^^^3), or 4^^^^4?
4 ^^^^^ 4 is waay bigger. And 3 ^^^^ 3 is itself bigger than (3^^^3)^^^(3^^^3).
And how can you tell?
3 ^^^^ 3 is equal to (3 ^^^ (3 ^^^ (3 ^^^ 3))). Which seems to be a more powerful way to hook up a bunch of pentation operators than having them in separate parenthised branches.
Such a squandering of Knuth arrows! Why pentate a pentation with a pentation when you can hexate?! Doesn’t 3^^^^3 just overwhelm you with the scope of its incomprehensibility? Or an escalation from the third Ackermann number (3^^^3) to the fourth (4^^^^4) hammer home the scope of the increase with a sense of elegant continuity?
2 → 5 →3
I love Conway’s notation too. Seriously elegant and naturally extensible. But why did you choose to represent 2 ^^^ 5? That’s not especially big. Did you mean 2 → 3 →5 (ie. 2 ^^^^^ 3)?
I didn’t want to get carried away.
Idle question: which is bigger, (3^^^3)^^^(3^^^3), or 4^^^^4? And how can you tell?
4 ^^^^^ 4 is waay bigger. And 3 ^^^^ 3 is itself bigger than (3^^^3)^^^(3^^^3).
3 ^^^^ 3 is equal to (3 ^^^ (3 ^^^ (3 ^^^ 3))). Which seems to be a more powerful way to hook up a bunch of pentation operators than having them in separate parenthised branches.
4^^^^4.