Ackermann numbers are pretty big, but they’re not yet big enough. The quest for still bigger numbers takes us back to the formalists.
what is the use of bigger numbers? Would it change our life so much to a point where we will thrive with them?
Ackermann numbers are pretty big, but they’re not yet big enough. The quest for still bigger numbers takes us back to the formalists.
what is the use of bigger numbers? Would it change our life so much to a point where we will thrive with them?
When there are, say, a hundred cities, there are about 10158 possible routes, and, although various shortcuts are possible, no known computer algorithm is fundamentally better than checking each route one by one. The traveling salesman problem belongs to a class called NP-complete, which includes hundreds of other problems of practical interest. (NP stands for the technical term ‘Nondeterministic Polynomial-Time.’) It’s known that if there’s an efficient algorithm for any NP-complete problem, then there are efficient algorithms for all of them. Here ‘efficient’ means using an amount of time proportional to at most the problem size raised to some fixed power—for example, the number of cities cubed. It’s conjectured, however, that no efficient algorithm for NP-complete problems exists. Proving this conjecture, called P¹ NP, has been a great unsolved problem of computer science for thirty years.
It's amazing that there are so many possible outcomes of paths to take when it comes to cities. Being so big that the human mind can't grasp the mountain of possibilities. How is this number really decided? There can be an infinite set of possible routes for one to take. Even if it is just the slightest difference of angles.