Technically impossible

Then divide by ten, right?

Divide by 10^{1010101010101010101010101010}

Then divide by ten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quin

Then divide by ten.

---

And then add 10 and subtract 9.999999999999999999...2

Really I did not know that multiplying two fractions smaller than 1 together now resulted in a larger number I apologize I do not keep up with the Math Picayune :zombert:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Really I did not know that multiplying two fractions smaller than 1 together now resulted in a larger number I apologize I do not keep up with the Math Picayune :zombert:

---

Seriously I'm so confused right now. Could you rephrase your premises in the form of a pokemon?

http://archives.bulbagarden.net/medi...r_4d_417_f.png http://archives.bulbagarden.net/medi...r_4d_417_f.png http://archives.bulbagarden.net/medi...r_4d_417_f.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peegee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I'll go with nⁿ

---

Think you're looking for n^1/n

---

1 ^ 1/1 = 1
2 ^ 1/2 = root 2 = 1.4142135623730950488016887242097
3 ^ 1/3 = 1.4422495650258313877722482943279

.... what?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

I'll go with nⁿ

---

Guys seriously every n there is whatever number you are citing as the answer.

---

I assume (and I guess this could be a wrong assumption) that MILF was saying take any number posted in this thread, and then applying nⁿ to it (I also realize I quoted the wrong post in my last post, I meant to quote MILF's 2nd one). Unfortunately as n -> 0, nⁿ approaches 1. If n is tiny, however, n^1/n is, in fact, nearly 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by qwertsaur

Both wrong. It's n^-n

---

If you are interpreting MILF's statement the same way I am, no it's not. This also approaches 1, but from the opposite side that nⁿ does.

I probably read it wrong though.

Wait a minute everyone stop what you are doing!

I am retarded and did not say what I thought I was saying. I thought I was just taking a clever and more-powerful shortcut to what Keith said with the Graham's Number thing because whatever you said would be multiplied by itself (Because I forgot that ⁿ is not necessarily going to work the same way as ² does).

Sorry :( I'll go away and not pretend I have done any math more advanced than a grocery bill in the last eight years again. :cry:

This thread got stupid. I declare myself the winner and the rest of you can suck my dangle.

I'm totally okay with that, Shlup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

This thread got stupid. I declare myself the winner and the rest of you can suck my dangle.

---

Present it.

As a comp sci, I'll just approximate it as 0.001 and say that's good enough for most general purpose calculations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

This thread got stupid. I declare myself the winner and the rest of you can suck my dangle.

---

My first post has a number much smaller than yours.

Red pill I assumed n was approaching infinity :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peegee

[doesn't expect responses]

---

e^-infinity