# I have developed the biggest number = 'L'

mikelom
Science 17 Apr '11 08:26
1. 17 Apr '11 08:26
Alexander's number and Graham's number cannot count upto my number, as my number is immeasurable.

Mathematician's can't even draw up a principle, first principle, for measuring human emotion or attitude.

My number, 'L', is for love.

I suggest there is no principle number or theory for attempting to measure this reality, and therefore claim 'L' = Mike's number, is the biggest number in what science can comprehend as a number to measure, but doesn't know how to do, nor in doing it with a computer or x and y and z theory, extract theory, statistic theory, quantum or stellar, cosmotic or any other believed measurable. Space time can't even measure this,,, although I do have a theory that shopping for shoes with a woman does in fact slow down time.

I win. 😀😀

Mike's Number (L) IS THE BIGGEST NUMBER IN THE WORLD. 😏

-m. 😉
2. avalanchethecat
Not actually a cat
17 Apr '11 09:29
Originally posted by mikelom
Alexander's number and Graham's number cannot count upto my number, as my number is immeasurable.

Mathematician's can't even draw up a principle, first principle, for measuring human emotion or attitude.

My number, 'L', is for love.

I suggest there is no principle number or theory for attempting to measure this reality, and therefore claim 'L' = Mik ...[text shortened]...

I win. 😀😀

Mike's Number (L) IS THE BIGGEST NUMBER IN THE WORLD. 😏

-m. 😉
Bigger than 2L? Or L squared? If it's bigger than 2L, then surely it must be negative? If it's bigger than L squared, surely it's less than one?
3. Palynka
Upward Spiral
17 Apr '11 12:24
Far out, man.
4. 18 Apr '11 04:581 edit
Originally posted by mikelom
.... as my number is immeasurable.

..... and therefore claim 'L' = Mike's number, is the biggest number in what science can comprehend as a number to measure.........
Is your number measurable or not?

P.S. My love is bigger than yours.
5. Agerg
The 'edit'or
18 Apr '11 14:202 edits
|
|__ is bigger than L
6. 19 Apr '11 04:57
Originally posted by mikelom

Mathematician's can't even draw up a principle, first principle, for measuring human emotion or attitude.

My number, 'L', is for love.
I must be old, in my day L was just 50
7. 19 Apr '11 11:07
Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Bigger than 2L? Or L squared? If it's bigger than 2L, then surely it must be negative? If it's bigger than L squared, surely it's less than one?
You can't have 2L, as L is limited to L. L squared can't exist - how do you mulitply the emotion of love?

L can be less than 1 or more than 1 with it's FK factor, unless you are a bigamist... 😛

L as a function of FK, simply IS the largest number. as the FK factor make is immeasurably immense, and still bigger than the previous large number record holders.... 😏

-m.
8. 19 Apr '11 11:27
Originally posted by cromlech
I must be old, in my day L was just 50
L? I thought in your days 50 was 5 rows of 10 big stones each...

Richard
9. 19 Apr '11 13:05
Originally posted by Shallow Blue
L? I thought in your days 50 was 5 rows of 10 big stones each...

Richard
Na! It was 5 rows of 10 teeth, when he was a fish! 😀
10. flexmore
Quack Quack Quack !
20 Apr '11 09:40
Originally posted by mikelom
Alexander's number and Graham's number cannot count upto my number, as my number is immeasurable.

Mathematician's can't even draw up a principle, first principle, for measuring human emotion or attitude.

My number, 'L', is for love.

I suggest there is no principle number or theory for attempting to measure this reality, and therefore claim 'L' = Mik ...[text shortened]...

I win. 😀😀

Mike's Number (L) IS THE BIGGEST NUMBER IN THE WORLD. 😏

-m. 😉
Does 'L' satisfy the requirements to actually be a number?
My question is on two levels: mathematically and also emotionally.

I think it satisfies neither - sorry.

But, if it did, whatever that would mean, then it may qualify as larger than Graham's.
11. 20 Apr '11 10:251 edit
Originally posted by flexmore
Does 'L' satisfy the requirements to actually be a number?
My question is on two levels: mathematically and also emotionally.

I think it satisfies neither - sorry.

But, if it did, whatever that would mean, then it may qualify as larger than Graham's.
This post was in jest, but on second thoughts could be beyond jest.

Of course the measurement of love is indeed very difficult, considering all of the attached emotional factors involved which would also have to be measured and attributed as factors of the primary guesstimation, but I believe that L, love itself, must be measurable in one way or another, even if I discredited that in my jest.

I didn't say it was impossible to measure love and attached emotions, I indicated that it would be incredibly difficult, in using the word 'immeasurable'. I now suggest that it deserves to have at least a theory. 😉

If L is measurable, along with all of the factoring emotions as a part of the equation then, as you have indicated, it may well exceed Graham's number. 😀

Mightn't it?

If we could measure 'L' - wouldn't people want to know their associated number, at certain times? 😀

-m.
12. 21 Apr '11 07:10
Originally posted by mikelom
I didn't say it was impossible to measure love and attached emotions, I indicated that it would be incredibly difficult, in using the word 'immeasurable'. I now suggest that it deserves to have at least a theory. 😉
Actually it is remarkably easy to measure love. One can measure it the same way we measure everything we value. With money.
How much do you value your computer? The amount of money you would be willing to sell it for.
How much do you love your loved one? The amount of money you would be willing to give him/her up for.
Simple.
13. Palynka
Upward Spiral
21 Apr '11 10:10
Actually it is remarkably easy to measure love. One can measure it the same way we measure everything we value. With money.
How much do you value your computer? The amount of money you would be willing to sell it for.
How much do you love your loved one? The amount of money you would be willing to give him/her up for.
Simple.
You'd have to find an indirect way to measure it, though, because nobody will tell you the truth (whether they realize it or not).

That has been done with life, actually. How much do you value an extra year of expected lifetime is going to be reflected in how much you are willing to pay for health insurance.
14. 21 Apr '11 13:11
Originally posted by Palynka
You'd have to find an indirect way to measure it, though, because nobody will tell you the truth (whether they realize it or not).

That has been done with life, actually. How much do you value an extra year of expected lifetime is going to be reflected in how much you are willing to pay for health insurance.
Another factor to add to this largening equation! Care of Palynka.

I wonder if life insurance companies would eventually complete a measured number of life expectancy, and quote and care factor, based upon your 'L' number?
15. Palynka
Upward Spiral
21 Apr '11 13:41
Originally posted by mikelom
Another factor to add to this largening equation! Care of Palynka.

I wonder if life insurance companies would eventually complete a measured number of life expectancy, and quote and care factor, based upon your 'L' number?
Do you speak English?