Timeline for How to explain Real Big Numbers?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2017 at 22:51 | comment | added | Simply Beautiful Art | @PeteL.Clark What about the fast growing hierarchy? :-) | |
| Jan 22, 2011 at 0:35 | history | edited | Bill Dubuque | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 7 characters in body |
| Aug 29, 2010 at 17:32 | history | edited | Bill Dubuque | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 13 characters in body |
| Aug 29, 2010 at 7:12 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | +1: In particular, as a working number theorist, I do not often encounter "Real Big Numbers". Usually I am interested in properties that hold for all / all sufficiently large / infinitely many positive integers, but that's not the same. Maybe the OP is thinking of notoriously bad explicit bounds in analytic number theory, but (in my opinion) this arises only because analytic number theorists have a long tradition of being interested in explicit bounds and not for any deeper reason inherent to the subject. | |
| Aug 28, 2010 at 15:06 | history | answered | Bill Dubuque | CC BY-SA 2.5 |