News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by danbruc on Sunday June 05, 2016 @09:18AM (#11840781)
No discussion of 52! is complete without [1]. A somewhat condensed version of one of the illustrations from the site.

52! is the number of different ways you can arrange a single deck of cards. Let's try to wrap our puny human brains around the magnitude of this number with a fun little theoretical exercise. Start a timer that will count down the number of seconds from 52! to 0. We're going to see how much fun we can have before the timer counts down all the way. Start by picking your favorite spot on the equator. You're going to walk around the world along the equator, but take a very leisurely pace of one step every billion years. Make sure to pack a deck of playing cards, so you can get in a few trillion hands of solitaire between steps.

After you complete your round the world trip, remove one drop of water from the Pacific Ocean. Now do the same thing again: walk around the world at one billion years per step, removing one drop of water from the Pacific Ocean each time you circle the globe. Continue until the ocean is empty.

When it is, take one sheet of paper and place it flat on the ground. Now, fill the ocean back up and start the entire process all over again, adding a sheet of paper to the stack each time you’ve emptied the ocean. Do this until the stack of paper reaches from the Earth to the Sun.

Take a glance at the timer, you will see that the three left-most digits haven’t even changed. You still have 8.063 × 10⁶⁷ more seconds to go. So, take the stack of papers down and do it all over again. One thousand times more. Unfortunately, that still won’t do it. There are still more than 5.385 × 10⁶⁷ seconds remaining. You’re just about a third of the way done.

[1] http://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by Kortaggio on Sunday June 05, 2016 @04:40PM (#11843006)
Vsauce has a fantastic animation of this too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObiqJzfyACM&t=16m4s

Deal yourself five cards every billion years. When you finally deal yourself a royal flush, buy a lottery ticket. If the ticket wins the lottery, throw a single grain of sand into the Grand Canyon. As soon as the Grand Canyon is completely full of sand, remove one ounce of rock from Mount Everest. By the time Mount Everest is level: take a look at the clock. You'll have to do the whole thing all over again 256 more times before your timer reaches zero.

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by elfchief on Sunday June 05, 2016 @12:43PM (#11841777)
I found an error on the linked page, but unfortunately the author doesn't appear to have contact information anywhere, so I can't really report it. :(

That page (in 'The Details') reports that the length of a year will change over time due to leap seconds, but that's not actually the case -- leap seconds correct for changes in the Earth's rotation on its axis, but years measure the Earth's trip around the sun, and these two things are unrelated.

(Leaving here on the extremely off chance the author of that page reads HN!)

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by iconjack on Sunday June 05, 2016 @05:14PM (#11843157)
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by ColinWright on Sunday June 05, 2016 @05:19PM (#11843187)
They were referring to the link in the comment to which they were replying, namely, this one:

http://czep.net/weblog/52cards.html

The address you provided here is correct, but is for the submitted article.

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by theoh on Sunday June 05, 2016 @05:19PM (#11843183)
Actually, the page section mentioned ("The Details") is on the czep.net page. http://czep.net/contact/ is empty.
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by iopq on Sunday June 05, 2016 @10:15AM (#11841054)
Pfft, it's much smaller than the number of atoms in the universe. Then again, after I read how to calculate Graham's number, I'm not impressed by much.
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by IanCal on Sunday June 05, 2016 @02:20PM (#11842282)
TREE(3) is significantly larger, though the explanations as far as I've found them require understanding much more complicated maths than for Graham's number (at least, I can follow the explanation for Graham's number, but not TREE(3)).

The fun bit about TREE(3) is that the sequence TREE(1), TREE(2), TREE(3) goes :

TREE(1): 1

TREE(2): 3

TREE(3): explosion

n(4) is another fun one. n(3) is less than Graham's number, which itself is roughly A^64(4). n(4) is about A^A^(187196)(1)

http://everything2.com/title/TREE%25283%2529

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by iopq on Monday June 06, 2016 @12:10AM (#11844599)
Am I understanding correctly we don't know how large TREE(3) is?
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by nikbackm on Monday June 06, 2016 @01:47AM (#11844888)
I've only ever seen lower bound values given.

E.g. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/93828/how-large-is-tree3

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by pdpi on Monday June 06, 2016 @08:06AM (#11846132)
If you've taken the time to figure out Graham's number, take a few minutes to familiarise yourself with the Ackerman function, so that you can grasp the full weight of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/207/
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by mylons on Sunday June 05, 2016 @12:39PM (#11841745)
do you mind linking to what you read on Graham's number? The wikipedia is interesting, but it seems like you found something more so
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by Styx- on Sunday June 05, 2016 @12:43PM (#11841769)
Not OP, but Wait But Why did a great article on it a few weeks ago:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by Amanjeev on Sunday June 05, 2016 @12:42PM (#11841765)
I have always enjoyed Numberphile and here is the man himself (Graham) explaining it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by ufo on Sunday June 05, 2016 @02:37PM (#11842375)
If you like big numbers, this article is a must read:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by jsprogrammer on Sunday June 05, 2016 @01:24PM (#11842001)
Wildberger recently provided a more systematic approach (though Graham's number is not mentioned explicitly) to hyperoperations in one of his videos [0]. He also discusses some implications of working with numbers so large (including in other videos of the series).

[0] https://youtu.be/Wv65xhrJ0zc

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by 112233 on Sunday June 05, 2016 @05:08PM (#11843134)
you might enjoy reading the analysis of loader.c number here:

http://djm.cc/bignum-results.txt

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by jerlundy on Sunday June 05, 2016 @12:11PM (#11841611)
And x 3000 if they left the Jokers in...