 | | Re: Is lego *truly* unlimited? (some thoughts) —David Eaton
| | | | (...) Ok, so it's asymptotic, not logarithmic, and it approaches 4, so 4 was a perfectly cromulent guess. However. Since the sum of any line N of Pascal's triangle is apparently 2^N (starting at row 0), and you'd theoretically count EVERYTHING (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Googolplex (was: Is lego *truly* unlimited?) —Ross Crawford
| | | | | (...) I found the following amusing description of how to visualise a googolplex: "...if one put this black hole into a hypothetical rigid nonpermeable box, a few million light years in size, and looked at the contents once a year, it would look (...) (20 years ago, 9-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Googolplex (was: Is lego *truly* unlimited?) —David Eaton
| | | | | (...) build' question, given that it only obtains a googolplex by measuring the number of "distinct" states by a wholly ridiculous number of particles. And try as I might, I can't get the number of Lego configurations to get much beyond (...) (20 years ago, 10-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
| | | | | | |
