Well? which one is bigger ?

>""""numbers""""

The bottom one takes up more space, therefore it's bigger.

Do an order of magnitude estimation. For the top [eqn] 10^{831,600} + 10^{16,783,200} + 10^3 \times (10^2)^{1,155,840} \approx 8^{831,600} + 19^{16,783,200} + 1375 \times 578^{1,155,840} [/eqn] clearly [math] 10^{16,783,200} [/math] dominates. For the bottom [eqn] 17^{2,910,600} + 23^{1,218,986,496} + 791 \left (10^{10,000} + 39^{2,573,532} \right ) \ approx 10^{2,910,600} + 10^{1,218,986,496} + 10^2 \left (10^{10,000} + 39^{2,573,532} \right [/eqn] clearly the second term dominates, so the bottom is approximately [math] 10^{1,218,986,496} [/math] so the bottom expression is larger.

>Fucking trivial.

I was actually tricking you.

There's an error in the formula. So it's obviously not so intuitive or you would have noticed.

use log few times to get rid of the towers
then use calculator or common sense; the second number is bigger

> Learn how to solve that
> Learn how to get pussy

Choose one

>the second number is bigger
because of the 152?

You don't multiply those you retarded ass munching faggot, you raise to that power, e.g. 8^8^8^8=8^(8^(8^8)), and not 8^(8*8*8). The point is that you can't even compute the fucking exponent, it has so many fucking digits (think graham's number, but smaller).

I should have replied to you too
>hurr it's trivial
more like you can't use fucking exponents properly you HS dropout fag

leave this board and never come back

I don't get this Wildburger memery desu, the real numbers are constructed and dealt with in a such a way that whether we can "compute" such large numbers is irrelevant; as long as we use such objects which satisfy the properties of a "real number", our theorems about real numbers continue to hold.

Is this some grudge about the applicability of infinite cardinality systems to the real world? If so he needs to go into physics or at least into philosophy, where they might care about this. I can't imagine anyone really caring about what he claims are the failures of the reals.

And about his whole rational obsession: he often argues something along the lines of
>we can't write down the base-[math]n[/math] form of [math]\sqrt{2}[/math] (on paper, in computer memory, etc)
>therefore it makes no sense to work with such numbers
but clearly he has no idea how the philosophy of physics (and science by extension, I suppose) works -- just because we are unable to represent an object in our 'language' doesn't mean it can't occur in reality. What part of "we don't have enough memory to store all the digits of [math]\pi[/math]" precludes the existence of the concept in nature, in all its irrationality?

tl;dr fuck the berger and fuck everyone who keeps making these threads.

>*

he does know all of this, he's a professor, genius
he's obsessed with using a different set of axioms though

why is the 578 in brackets

pure mathematicians tend to have an incredibly tenuous grasp on the natural sciences/physics/reality in general.

and those different axioms avoid (what he perceives as) problems of our standard system by simply introducing new ones

The 17 term looks like a beast to me, could easily be wrong though

so what is the answer?