Then divide by ten, right?
Then divide by ten, right?
Divide by 10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10<sup>10 </sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup></sup>
Then divide by ten.
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![]()
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 n<sup>n</sup> 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, n<sup>n</sup> approaches 1. If n is tiny, however, n<sup>1/n</sup> is, in fact, nearly 0.
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 n<sup>n</sup> does.Originally Posted by qwertsaur
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 <sup>n</sup> is not necessarily going to work the same way as <sup>2</sup> does).
SorryI'll go away and not pretend I have done any math more advanced than a grocery bill in the last eight years again.
![]()
I'm totally okay with that, Shlup.
e^-infinity