Technically impossible

[blackmage_nuke]

Σ(dignity in this thread)

edit: Oh wait that's also equal to zero

[Loony BoB]

I was wondering if you guys could construct the lowest value number greater than 0.

No, we can't.

Anyone who is putting something together may be constructing the lowest value number greater than 0 in this thread, but the simple answer to your question is that, from what I understand, we can not construct the lowest value number greater than 0. The closest you could get is to say 0.0...01 or something along those lines. But even then it arguably is equal to zero. There is no such thing as the lowest value number greater than 0.

[Quindiana Jones]

/10

[qwertysaur]

Quin. Every time you divide by 10, I will divide by 101010101010101010101010101010 .

[Quindiana Jones]

Well, now it's turtles all the way down.

[Peegee]

I was wondering if you guys could construct the lowest value number greater than 0.

No, we can't.

Anyone who is putting something together may be constructing the lowest value number greater than 0 in this thread, but the simple answer to your question is that, from what I understand, we can not construct the lowest value number greater than 0. The closest you could get is to say 0.0...01 or something along those lines. But even then it arguably is equal to zero. There is no such thing as the lowest value number greater than 0.

>0.000...01

fffuuuuu

Anyway this farce has gone long enough - I declare Yarbles the winner as he said the following over msn:

Yar: take the largest number and divide 1 by it.

Which is, in effect, the smallest number greater than 0! Yay

Spoiler alert: for the largest [finite] number, please refer to OP's link

[Quindiana Jones]

/10

[qwertysaur]

divide that by 101010101010101010101010101010 !!!!!, 101010101010101010101010101010 !!!!! times. Remember that ! means factorial

Edit: Here is another one. a_n is defined as the largest number raised to the power of (-n).
Then take the following.

The letter pi is similar to Sigma where you add up all the terms in a series, only you have to multiply all the terms, not add them.

[Quindiana Jones]

/10

[qwertysaur]

divide that by 101010101010101010101010101010 !!!!!, 101010101010101010101010101010 !!!!! times. Take that number and multiply it by the following.

a_n is defined as the largest number raised to the power of (-n).
Then take the following.


repeat this action the same amount of times as the result of the above action raised to the ^-1!!!!! (factorials) times. take that number, and have a_n be defined as that number raised to the power of n and take the following.



Repeat this procedure using the new numbers from each previous step m times, where m is defined as the amount of cubic plank lengths are in the entire universe!!!!!!!! ( again, factorials).

[Quindiana Jones]

/10 :factorialcolbert:

[Peegee]

Anyway, a larger finite value would be the sum of all real values in the set of real numbers. Divide one by that (then divide it by 10) and you get smaller values. Har har

[qwertysaur]

divide that by 101010101010101010101010101010 !!!!!, 101010101010101010101010101010 !!!!! times. Take that number and multiply it by the following.

a_n is defined as the largest number raised to the power of (-n).
Then take the following.


repeat this action the same amount of times as the result of the above action raised to the ^-1!!!!! (factorials) times. take that number, and have a_n be defined as that number raised to the power of n and take the following.



Repeat this procedure using the new numbers from each previous step m times, where m is defined as the amount of cubic plank lengths are in the entire universe!!!!!!!! ( again, factorials).

Repeat this process k!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (20 factorials) times where k equals the following

let a_n is defined as the largest numberⁿ


The following action shall be named the IQN function. The IQN function can only be used on the number s where s is defined as 0&lt;s<1.

furthermore, if any operation is performed on a number resulting from this number would result in a number smaller number greater than 0, then the IQN function would immediately be performed on that number to result in a number smaller than that the number resulting from the trigger operation. If a number bigger is the result, the IQN function will proceed to ridicule the offender and then perform itself on the number from the previous iteration of the IQN function.
Basically, no matter what you do this function will guarentee a number smaller than any number offered, any attempts to make that number smaller will result in the function repeating itself to counter the challenge and make give a smaller number. Also failed attempts still result in the function generating a smaller number.

Edit: PG the sum of all real numbers is 0. You are taking 1 + -1 +2 + -2 ... so all terms cancel out with the corresponding negative term.

[Quindiana Jones]

Your whole post in negated because the date and time of its creation are strikeouted (?), therefore it doesn't exist.

Besides, :factorialcolbert: has spoken.

[Peegee]

[q]Anyway, a larger finite value would be the sum of all real values in the set of real numbers. Divide one by that (then divide it by 10) and you get smaller values. Har har [/q]

Actually I wonder if you can do that. I honestly think I did define the largest finite real number earlier - did I? If I did, dividing one by that number would yield the smallest possible value above 0.