17 Apr 11
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. 😉
17 Apr 11
Originally posted by mikelomBigger 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?
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. 😉
18 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by mikelomYou are contradicting yourself.
.... 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.
19 Apr 11
Originally posted by avalanchethecatYou can't have 2L, as L is limited to L. L squared can't exist - how do you mulitply the emotion of love?
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?
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.
20 Apr 11
Originally posted by mikelomDoes 'L' satisfy the requirements to actually be a number?
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. 😉
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.
20 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreThis post was in jest, but on second thoughts could be beyond jest.
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.
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.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by mikelomActually it is remarkably easy to measure love. One can measure it the same way we measure everything we value. With money.
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. 😉
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.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou'd have to find an indirect way to measure it, though, because nobody will tell you the truth (whether they realize it or not).
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.
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.
21 Apr 11
Originally posted by PalynkaAnother factor to add to this largening equation! Care of 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.
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?