In mathematics, Steinhaus–Moser notation is a notation for expressing certain large numbers. It is an extension (devised by Leo Moser) of Hugo Steinhaus's polygon notation.[1]
Steinhaus defined:
- mega is the number equivalent to 2 in a circle:
- megiston is the number equivalent to 10 in a circle: ⑩
Moser's number is the number represented by "2 in a megagon". Megagon is here the name of a polygon with "mega" sides (not to be confused with the polygon with one million sides).
Alternative notations:
- use the functions square(x) and triangle(x)
- let M(n, m, p) be the number represented by the number n in m nested p-sided polygons; then the rules are:
- and
- mega =
- megiston =
- moser =
A mega, ②, is already a very large number, since ② =
square(square(2)) = square(triangle(triangle(2))) =
square(triangle(22)) =
square(triangle(4)) =
square(44) =
square(256) =
triangle(triangle(triangle(...triangle(256)...))) [256 triangles] =
triangle(triangle(triangle(...triangle(256256)...))) [255 triangles] ~
triangle(triangle(triangle(...triangle(3.2317 × 10616)...))) [255 triangles]
...
Using the other notation:
mega =
With the function we have mega = where the superscript denotes a functional power, not a numerical power.
We have (note the convention that powers are evaluated from right to left):
-
- ≈
Similarly:
-
-
-
etc.
Thus:
- mega = , where denotes a functional power of the function .
Rounding more crudely (replacing the 257 at the end by 256), we get mega ≈ , using Knuth's up-arrow notation.
After the first few steps the value of is each time approximately equal to . In fact, it is even approximately equal to (see also approximate arithmetic for very large numbers). Using base 10 powers we get:
- ( is added to the 616)
- ( is added to the , which is negligible; therefore just a 10 is added at the bottom)
...
- mega = , where denotes a functional power of the function . Hence
It has been proven that in Conway chained arrow notation,
and, in Knuth's up-arrow notation,
Therefore, Moser's number, although incomprehensibly large, is vanishingly small compared to Graham's number:[2]
Hugo Steinhaus, Mathematical Snapshots, Oxford University Press 19693, ISBN 0195032675, pp. 28-29