Technically impossible

[qwertysaur]

Raise yours to the power of mine the same amount of times mine has a zero to the power yours has a zero between the decimal point and the one, then raise that power to the result the same amount of times as the number of zeros between the decimal point in that number and the one, repeat this process for all eternity. Then after that multiply all the parts of the series of numbers and then raise that number to the power of itself the same amount of times as number of zeros between the decimal point and the one in that number.

Also I actually gave a number that has no variables.

[Raistlin]

My equation is this: Let x be any number greater than zero that has been, is or could ever be thought up by any sentient being anywhere in the universe. Now x/10.

Considering that that's just a very large number divided by 10, which results in just a slightly smaller very large number... I think you officially lost.

[Inferno]

I say there's no way to define it... it's impossible

[Quindiana Jones]

Yeah, after typing it I realised it's only not bollocks when you just dickmove it. As with my previous "/10 " comment. It works if you just wait for someone to say their small number and throw it in after haha. Screw this. If I knew how to do it, I'd make an automated response to every post made in this thread that just says "/10 " over and over again.

Then I'd get iffy nerd gash as well, for my amazing computer skills.

[Raistlin]

1/x as x approaches 0 from the right? (to make it positive)

As x approaches 0? Wouldn't that be infinity? I assume you mean as X approaches infinity (and then wouldn't that be 0?).

[qwertysaur]

infinitesimals are fun

[I Took the Red Pill]

(1/(Graham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's Number        ))Graham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's NumberGraham's Number10000Graham's Number         

"Indeed, the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies at least one Planck volume."

[Peegee]

Mine has trillions upon trillions of zeros between the decimal and the one.

Quin's has that + 1.

What are you talking about? Your answer is 0 unless infinitesimals actually exist as a rational value -

{x | x > x/2}

Which is nonsense imo.

[Madame Adequate]

I'll go with nⁿ

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

[Quindiana Jones]

/10

[Bunny]

Who cares math sucks.

[rubah]

1/x as x approaches 0 from the right? (to make it positive)

As x approaches 0? Wouldn't that be infinity? I assume you mean as X approaches infinity (and then wouldn't that be 0?).

yeah probably! I was just trying to think of something that had an asymptote at 0

Milfy, we've moved on from big numbers! We're going for small numbers, I think

[I Took the Red Pill]

I'll go with nⁿ

Think you're looking for n^1/n

[Peegee]

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?

[qwertysaur]

I'll go with nⁿ

Think you're looking for n^1/n

Both wrong. It's n^-n

Anyway to make the numbers even smaller. take Red pills submission, but replace each instance of Grahams number and replace it with Grahams number factorial.