I like rewatching the Numberphile video where Graham talks about Graham's Number. He says "Three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three... " quite a lot.
@mihailsivanovs3 ай бұрын
DO NOT COMPARE Graham's Number with the Universe, every Googologist should know that 3^^^3 is already more than anything that can be imagined even in the multiverse! And the Grahams Number is greater than 3^^^3, well, times the Graham Number!
@nzqarc
2 ай бұрын
Tritri mentioned
@DWithDiagonalStroke
Ай бұрын
@@nzqarcTritri my beloved
@davidhopkins694627 күн бұрын
If I begin a forest with the first tree being a white root and black child, and the nth tree has at most n+1 vertices, and no earlier tree in inf-embeddable in any later tree, how many trees will be in the longest forest I can make?
@pi_man33 ай бұрын
Yay, even more googology
@danielroden94243 ай бұрын
G(64) but about even getting past G(1)? do any of those absurd events even approach that?
@carbrickscity
3 ай бұрын
I mentioned it in the videos. No.
@thepopboyuscl16822 ай бұрын
What about the probability of me or you existing. Can you discuss about that in next video?
@LuisaBedoyamartinez3 ай бұрын
hey carbrickscity, do you think the size of the observable universe is overrated?
@carbrickscity
3 ай бұрын
Not sure what you mean by overrated. Don't get me wrong it's big. It's just that when it compare to googology it maybe tiny.
@vizart20452 ай бұрын
How big would the universe have to be to fit Grahams number within it?
@carbrickscity
2 ай бұрын
About Graham's number of lightyears or meters in size.
@vizart2045
2 ай бұрын
@@carbrickscity Actually it could be superempty too. One atom per Grahams number of cubic light years.
@carbrickscity
2 ай бұрын
Space is quite empty.
@dantemarotta3563 ай бұрын
Googolplex cannot be written out in decimal in the Universe let alone real BIG numbers like Skewes Graham etc
Пікірлер: 17
I like rewatching the Numberphile video where Graham talks about Graham's Number. He says "Three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three... " quite a lot.
DO NOT COMPARE Graham's Number with the Universe, every Googologist should know that 3^^^3 is already more than anything that can be imagined even in the multiverse! And the Grahams Number is greater than 3^^^3, well, times the Graham Number!
@nzqarc
2 ай бұрын
Tritri mentioned
@DWithDiagonalStroke
Ай бұрын
@@nzqarcTritri my beloved
If I begin a forest with the first tree being a white root and black child, and the nth tree has at most n+1 vertices, and no earlier tree in inf-embeddable in any later tree, how many trees will be in the longest forest I can make?
Yay, even more googology
G(64) but about even getting past G(1)? do any of those absurd events even approach that?
@carbrickscity
3 ай бұрын
I mentioned it in the videos. No.
What about the probability of me or you existing. Can you discuss about that in next video?
hey carbrickscity, do you think the size of the observable universe is overrated?
@carbrickscity
3 ай бұрын
Not sure what you mean by overrated. Don't get me wrong it's big. It's just that when it compare to googology it maybe tiny.
How big would the universe have to be to fit Grahams number within it?
@carbrickscity
2 ай бұрын
About Graham's number of lightyears or meters in size.
@vizart2045
2 ай бұрын
@@carbrickscity Actually it could be superempty too. One atom per Grahams number of cubic light years.
@carbrickscity
2 ай бұрын
Space is quite empty.
Googolplex cannot be written out in decimal in the Universe let alone real BIG numbers like Skewes Graham etc