I want to count the number of possible permutations of the particles. We’ve now got a “larger” number than Ω will ever be able to represent by definition (even Ω² is minuscule by comparison).

▲

novia an hour ago | parent [-]

yeah that seems fine. there's like no good reason to do that. are you trying to simulate reality or something?

but my point still stands, choose whichever calculation you think is important to be able to do with Ω, defined as f(Ω), square it for good measure, and set that as the max, the min, and the number of numbers in between each integer.

The total number of possible numbers will be ~2*f(Ω)⁴ which should be more than enough numbers :)

▲

vlovich123 an hour ago | parent [-]

AES256 already has more possible keys than exist atoms in the visible universe and that’s a pretty mundane thing. If you wanted to store all those keys, that’s even large. # of atoms in the universe turns into a very small very quickly when talking about permutations and permutations come up all the time (mathematical simulations, probability computations, etc).

I really don’t understand what point you’re trying to make saying “pick the largest possible number relevant” as that number varies. Also, that’s just the rational numbers. There’s plenty of digits of precision needed for trajectories over galactic distances and the more precision you try to give irrational numbers, the larger your magical “largest number” needs to grow again.

Also, we don’t know how big the “non observable universe” is and it’s beyond the scope of science. It very well could be an infinite number of atoms and then what?

▲

random3 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Since we don’t know the number of atoms, we’d need to let omega be a function, then deal with all the edge cases, rename omega with ∞ and..

	▲	vlovich123 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah I can’t tell if op is trolling or really thinks they can just define a rational number big enough to not need infinity as a concept.