

Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next]  
The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3157 Posts 
Quote:
On Jun 17, 2020, ddyment wrote: Does that include the Jokers?
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.


Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2944 Posts 
Holy s**t! Forgot about the jokers. Then there are the ad cards...
M
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com 

Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2944 Posts 
Holy s**t! Forgot about the jokers. Then there are the ad cards...
M
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com 

landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5129 Posts 
Quote:
On Jun 17, 2020, ddyment wrote: Kind of makes "Which Hand?" seem a bit anemic. Unless you repeated it around 278 times.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. 

ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2375 Posts 
Quote:
On Jun 17, 2020, The Burnaby Kid wrote: Nope, that's just the basic 52 cards; adding two jokers would bring it to 4.16 x 18^87, or, more precisely, 4158510357271340160185926137424313864761826344094880133834426997657296699392000000000000 or, if you prefer, Click here to view attached image.
"Calculated Thoughts" is available at Vanishing Inc. and The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More


Count Hatrick New user 52 Posts 
I do find all the maths amazing, but more interesting is how do you effectively communicate this to spectators? Something tangible like the number of grains of sand on the earth seems more relatable than atoms in the universe, even if the maths lean the other way.


Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2944 Posts 
Count Hatrick  I give a very cool way to convey the size of this number in my book, Tesseract in a section called 51!. I think it's what you're looking for. Contact me at mpowers@mallofmagic.com and I'll send you a pdf.
Mike
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com 

The Burnaby Kid Inner circle St. John's, Canada 3157 Posts 
Quote:
On Jun 21, 2020, Count Hatrick wrote: The estimation is that we have 7.5x10^18 grains of sand on earth. So, let's say by some chance, you were able to do the following... take each grain of sand on earth, remove it, blow it up into a new planet, each with its own desert filled with that many grains of sand, and then remove each one of those grains of sand, and blow THEM up into a new planet, each with its own desert filled with that many grains of sand, you'd have two things. First, you'd apparently have a lot of time on your hands. Second, you'd still have fewer grains of sand than there are ways to uniquely shuffle a deck of cards. (Can somebody doublecheck my math on that? I was trying to find a way to creatively express "cubed").
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free card magic resource for beginners.


Danny Archer V.I.P. Philly 603 Posts 
I love this idea and have used the video below to help explain the concept to my audiences...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNS1QvDzCVw 

Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2944 Posts 
Danny  at the end he points out that 52! is much bigger than the number of atoms in the earth. That doesn't come close to conveying the size. It's actually bigger than the number of atoms in our galaxy which includes our sun (a million times the size of the earth) and all the other stars and planets  about 200 billion such stars.
Mike
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com 

Stanyon Inner circle Landrum, S.C. by way of Chicago 3415 Posts 
Is this accomplished with an In or Out Faro?
Stanyon
aka Steve Taylor "Every move a move!" "If you've enjoyed my performance half as much as I've enjoyed performing for you, then you've enjoyed it twice as much as me!" 

alexandreventura New user 5 Posts 
Since we don't know if the universe is infinite, it's unlikely that any big number can match an infinite amount of atoms in the universe


ekgdoc Regular user 108 Posts 
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2020, alexandreventura wrote: As I noted in the original post, we are talking about the number of atoms in the OBSERVABLE universe. David M. 

Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2944 Posts 
It's incorrect to say that there are more ways to arrange a deck of cards than atoms in the known universe or THE universe. The number is in the ballpark of the number of atoms in our milky way galaxy. The galaxy has about 200 to 400 billion stars. That's the comparison.
The observable universe has about 200 billion GALAXIES! So the comparison is to the number of atoms in OUR galaxy not the number of atoms in the universe. Mike
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com 

ekgdoc Regular user 108 Posts 
Quote:
On Sep 13, 2020, Mike Powers wrote: Mike, remember that cards can be face up and face down, as after a triumph shuffle. In this case, there are more ways to arrange a deck of cards than atoms in the observable universe. (52! approximates the number atoms in the Milky Way and is the number of arrangements if cards all face the same direction.) David M. 

Tortuga Inner circle St. Louis, MO 1043 Posts 
How does one count the number of atoms in something?
It's never crowded on the extra mile....


mlippo Inner circle Trieste (Italy) 1149 Posts 
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2020, Tortuga wrote: With lotsa patience ... 

Mike Powers Inner circle Midwest 2944 Posts 
I think unless specified, shuffle means FD into FD. Maybe I missed the reference to a triumph shuffle.
M
Mike Powers
http://www.mallofmagic.com 

ekgdoc Regular user 108 Posts 
Quote:
On Sep 15, 2020, Mike Powers wrote: The original post said nothing about shuffling. I mentioned the triumph shuffle only as a point of clarification. For lay people, I might introduce the concept like this: "Imagine I take this deck of cards, toss it up in the air, and then gather up all the cards. The cards would be really mixed up. Some cards face up, some cards face down, a real mess." One could then segway into a discussion on the number of different ways such a deck could be arranged. David M. 

MC Mirak Regular user 190 Posts 
Quote:
On Sep 14, 2020, Tortuga wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant Quote:
The Avogadro constant (NA[1] or L[2]) is the proportionality factor that relates the number of constituent particles (usually molecules, atoms or ions) in a sample with the amount of substance in that sample. Its SI unit is the reciprocal mole, and it is defined as NA = 6.02214076X1023 mol1. It is named after the Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro. 

The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » The workers » » Are there more ways to arrange a deck of cards than the number of atoms in the universe? (3 Likes)  
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3 [Next] 
[ Top of Page ] 
All content & postings Copyright © 20012022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. 
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 