Re:Magic: The Gathering Is Turing Complete (2019)
by thom on Thursday December 14, 2023 @04:43PM
(#38647697)
For what it’s worth, it’s currently vintage cube season on Magic Online and you can draft a deck with multiple infinite combos without much effort. Sadly you have to do all the clicking so you might run out of time. Paper magic is much kinder because once you’ve demonstrated a loop you can basically assign infinite damage, gain infinite life, create infinite creatures etc without having to play it out.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Magic: The Gathering Is Turing Complete (2019)
by jacksontheel on Thursday December 14, 2023 @05:50PM
(#38648486)
What's funny is that after demonstrating the loop you still have to give a concrete number of times that you repeat it. You can't deal infinite damage, but you sure can do a googolplex damage.
Re:Magic: The Gathering Is Turing Complete (2019)
by A_D_E_P_T on Friday December 15, 2023 @07:32AM
(#38653501)
Why go for such a small number? Raise Graham's Number to the power of itself -- at the very least.
https://research.phys.cmu.edu/biophysics/2021/01/09/nobody-c...
I'm sure it can be entertaining to try and deal the largest possible finite amount of damage, which requires finding uncommonly large numbers.
Re:Magic: The Gathering Is Turing Complete (2019)
by tromp on Friday December 15, 2023 @08:02AM
(#38653721)
Raising Google's Number to itself doesn't make it appreciably bigger. Instead you can pick TREE(3), or SCG(13), or Loader's Number which is about the largest famous one we know how to compute.
Beyond that there's the likes of Busy Beaver numbers and beyond that is Rayo's number.
Btw, Graham's Number is less than BB(49 bits) [1].
[1] https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/6430/shortest-t...