Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number. Call the symbol count N. Then my counterpoint is the Nth busy beaver number. That's a big number.
Yep!! The point is, if you say 'Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number', that's not well-defined and is fundamentally ambiguous due to the nature of language.
Comments
Meh.
Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number. Call the symbol count N. Then my counterpoint is the Nth busy beaver number. That's a big number.
You might as well say 'One plus the biggest whole number nameable with 1,000 characters of English text', if that sort of thing is allowed.
Are you alluding to Scott Aaronson's essay on Who Can Name the Bigger Number? [1]
[1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
Yep!! The point is, if you say 'Take however many symbols it takes you to describe your large number', that's not well-defined and is fundamentally ambiguous due to the nature of language.
Of course the whole large number pissing contest is extremely ageist.