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.
@@carbrickscity Yeah and it’s true. If it is 3 with g63 arrows and then 3, then it would have closer to g64 than g63 digits so it means that Graham’s Number has approximately Graham’s Number of digits. Not to mention TREE(3) has approximately TREE(3) digits as well.
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!
Thanks for the content. When could you make an explanation for BMS, Y Sequence, Tar and its relation to the limite of computable? Lambda calculus would also be incredible.
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?
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.
Graham once said “How many digits does Graham’s Number have? Well about the same number.”
He did. Actually I still have that video.
@@carbrickscity Yeah and it’s true. If it is 3 with g63 arrows and then 3, then it would have closer to g64 than g63 digits so it means that Graham’s Number has approximately Graham’s Number of digits. Not to mention TREE(3) has approximately TREE(3) digits as well.
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!
Tritri mentioned
@@nzqarcTritri my beloved
Thanks for the content. When could you make an explanation for BMS, Y Sequence, Tar and its relation to the limite of computable? Lambda calculus would also be incredible.
I don't know if I know enough about them.
Yay, even more googology
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?
G(64) but about even getting past G(1)? do any of those absurd events even approach that?
I mentioned it in the videos. No.
What about the probability of me or you existing. Can you discuss about that in next video?
Googolplex cannot be written out in decimal in the Universe let alone real BIG numbers like Skewes Graham etc
hey carbrickscity, do you think the size of the observable universe is overrated?
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?
About Graham's number of lightyears or meters in size.
@@carbrickscity Actually it could be superempty too. One atom per Grahams number of cubic light years.
Space is quite empty.