I was reading the following article on Ultrafinitism, and it mentions that one of the reasons ultrafinitists believe that N is not infinite is because the floor of $e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ is not computable. I was wondering if that's the case because of technological limitations, or whether there is another reason we cannot find a floor of this number.
2026-03-25 01:31:26.1774402286
$e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ and ultrafinitism
5.8k Views Asked by user325 https://math.techqa.club/user/user325/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in LOGIC
- Theorems in MK would imply theorems in ZFC
- What is (mathematically) minimal computer architecture to run any software
- What formula proved in MK or Godel Incompleteness theorem
- Determine the truth value and validity of the propositions given
- Is this a commonly known paradox?
- Help with Propositional Logic Proof
- Symbol for assignment of a truth-value?
- Find the truth value of... empty set?
- Do I need the axiom of choice to prove this statement?
- Prove that any truth function $f$ can be represented by a formula $φ$ in cnf by negating a formula in dnf
Related Questions in COMPUTATIONAL-COMPLEXITY
- Product of sums of all subsets mod $k$?
- Proving big theta notation?
- Little oh notation
- proving sigma = BigTheta (BigΘ)
- sources about SVD complexity
- Is all Linear Programming (LP) problems solvable in Polynomial time?
- growth rate of $f(x)= x^{1/7}$
- Unclear Passage in Cook's Proof of SAT NP-Completeness: Why The Machine M Should Be Modified?
- Minimum Matching on the Minimum Triangulation
- How to find the average case complexity of Stable marriage problem(Gale Shapley)?
Related Questions in PHILOSOPHY
- Does Planck length contradict math?
- Should axioms be seen as "building blocks of definitions"?
- Difference between provability and truth of Goodstein's theorem
- Decidability and "truth value"
- Is it possible to construct a formal system such that all interesting statements from ZFC can be proven within the system?
- Why linear congruential generator is called random number generator?
- Why is negative minus negative not negative? Why is negative times positive not directionless?
- What's the difference between a proof and a derivation?
- Godel's Theorems and Conventionalism
- Is "This sentence is true" true or false (or both); is it a proposition?
Related Questions in FINITISM
- Regularity in finitist models?
- Precise definition of relative consistency in Kunen's "Set Theory"
- Why do finitists reject the axiom of infinity?
- A model-theoretic question re: Nelson and exponentiation
- What part of arithmetic can be founded on recursive functions and without unbounded quantification?
- Developing model theory in the language of PA
- Is an ultrafinitist way around Gödel incompleteness theorems?
- Does infinity cause incompleteness in formal systems? Is a finite formal system complete?
- Can there be a number which is provably larger than any number, yet is provably not infinite
- Math that does not have infinity
Related Questions in ULTRAFINITISM
- How is ultrafinitism imprecise?
- Is an ultrafinitist way around Gödel incompleteness theorems?
- Can there be a number which is provably larger than any number, yet is provably not infinite
- Stronger notion of ultrafinite incompleteness
- Math that does not have infinity
- Zeilberger's potential proof of Fermat's last theorem.
- How much arithmetic can Predicative Second-Order EFA do?
- How do we distinguish between characteristic 0 and characteristic p for very large p?
- Book on ultrafinitism?
- $e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ and ultrafinitism
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
In the formal meaning of "computable" the floor of that number is indeed computable. This is to say that a patient immortal human with access to unlimited paper and pencil could, in principle, work out the answer. (Here I assume, for technical reasons, that the number in question is not an integer - I assume someone who knows enough number theory will be able to cite a result that implies this.)
The article linked makes the weaker claim that the value has not yet been calculated, which seems likely to me. The issue they are concerned about is that humans are not immortal and that our supply of paper is very limited. If the number of decimal digits in the value is too large, it would be impossible to actually represent it in any physical way within our universe.
In general, I think it is more accurate to say that ultrafinitists don't accept that the set of all natural numbers is a coherent entity - not that they think it is finite. However, as the article you linked alludes, it is very difficult to find a coherent but non-arbitrary way to say what natural numbers are without accepting that there are an infinite number of them.
Addendum Here is why I am worried whether $e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ is an integer. It's certainly correct that no matter what, the floor of that number is an integer and is therefore computable. That part of my argument is fine.
On the other hand, if $e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ is not an integer, then I can tell you a specific algorithm to use to compute it. Namely, compute better and better upper and lower bounds until they fall strictly between two consecutive integers (which they must, since their limit is not an integer) and then pick the smaller of those two integers.
If $e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ is an integer, then that algorithm won't work, because it will never stop. But if we knew that $e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ was an integer then we could take better and better upper and lower approximations until they straddle a single integer, and then pick that.
So the reason that I am interested whether the number is an integer is that, beyond merely knowing that the floor is an integer, I'd like to know which algorithm could be used to compute it.
In any case, I don't think that the point of the example was to pick a number that is not known to be integer or known to not be an integer. The point of the example should be to pick a number which is simply too large to represent physically. I was hoping that someone would have a quick answer that confirms $e^{e^{e^{79}}}$ is not an integer, so I could edit my response with that info. But the non-integer property seems more difficult than I thought.