Several quick notes: Yes, I am aware of SSCG(3) and Rayo's number but I thought that the video would drag on a little. There are several minor errors with the visuals. Specifically at 3:19 where it says that 65536 is 2 tetrated to 5 rather than 2 tetrated to 4 and at 6:31 where it shows TREE(10^10) when I say "TREE(googol)" when it should show TREE(10^100) When talking about graham's number, I said that g0 was 3 hexated to 3 but actually that's g1 and g0 isn't really a thing. I excluded infinity because I intend to make another video covering exclusively infinities. At 4:56 I display G↑ᴳ but, in actuality, this is an incomplete equation because you need another number on the other side of the equation. I basically just wrote the equivalent of "5 +" without a second number. Sorry about the music being a little too loud. Edit: Yes, everyone. I am writing a script for a sequel. You can stop mentioning SSCG(3), Rayo's number, BIG FOOT, the fast-growing hierarchy, etc...
Infinity is an idea of something which does not have an end, not a number. That is another reason why no one should mention infinity as a largest number in their video about googology.
@@Nikewertz__ Precisely, though infinity does serve as a sort of sister mathematical branch to googology so one could still assume I would cover it, which is why I gave another explanation as to why it's not covered.
@@RandomAndgit Also how are numbers that are as great as or greater than 10^1060 even usable, or calculatable? Because the highest number that computer systems can ever understand is 10^1054 after that going one value higher than that number will make the computer round it out to either "Nan" (which stands for not a number,) or the computer will round the number out to Infinity, So how did we even discover these numbers? 🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐
I would 100% watch that Also a bit of unrequested feedback, the video was really great but the audio mixing was a touch off, I found it a bit hard at times to understand what you’re saying over the music. Just lower the volume of the music and maybe raise your mic volume a bit and it should be fine :)
*The mathematicians version of "whatever you said times 1 billion"* Edit: to be fair, the name of this video was "The Biggest Number" or something like that when I made this comment.
Well, the bigger numbers mentioned in the video were created with math "proofs", how their function works and they are mostly "computable", it's just that the computation part will never end. What you described is called as "salad numbers" in googology math.
@@Judy-of-JudylandInfinity isn't a number. It isn't something we can reach by looking far enough. It is the number line. Infinity is the amount of all the numbers, it isn't among them. I'll end this off with a question. If you had an infinitely tall stack of 20$ bills and an infinitely tall stack of 1$ bills, which one has more money?
@@tkienjoyer the same amount of money. If you have a stack of zero $20 bills and a stack of zero $1 bills, which one has more money? Also, what's the difference between an amount and a cardinal number?
Oh just make sure you don't slip in the puddle TREE(TREE(g45))^^^3 miles from here, we accidentally knocked over TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(60^^^^^^^^g69))))^^^^^^^^g64 bottles of water, each containing TREE(g64) ounces of water each
Sure, just go to aisle TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(g65)))) and make sure you don’t knock over the newly made section, it is still under construction and you will be get a TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(g(g(g(291))))))))$ fine for breaking it, and also that’ll be TREE(g(20572))$ hexated to a googolplex sir
"hey, you want some 5 pentated to 5 chips?" "man, what is wrong with you." *dies of major pressure under the unimaginable mass of an unfathomable amount of chips*
The thing that always sticks in my throat with these numbers is that for Graham's Number we can see how it's constructed and why it's so large, but Tree(3) et al are described as "omg like, SOOOOO big... you can't even..." without any attempt to ever SHOW with even a hand-waving attempt at the operations used to BEGIN the climb to it.
To try to wrap your head around how fast TREE grows: what do you think is larger, G(TREE(3)), or TREE(4)? The answer is TREE(4) and it's not even close.
@@True_Base69891 oh, SSCG is a beast above and beyond. SSCG(3) is larger than TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE...(3)))) nested TREE(3) times. Essentially, SSCG is a generalized version of the TREE problem that works with graphs of any type, so TREE is damned to lose to it.
Rayo’s number gets mentioned a lot here, and I would like to bring up some fun properties of Rayo’s function used to construct such number The function grows linearly when the input value is small: with 10 first order set theory symbols you can write 1, with 30 you can write 2. Seems slow right? This is not the case however as it grows faster. By 300 you have the function growing at the rate of multiplication, by 340 you have it grow at the rate of exponentiation, and by 400 the rate becomes tetration. And we’re not talking about the actual value of Rayo’s function; no, this is just a lower bound. If I remember correctly, RAYO(380) is at least greater than 2^65536 By the time you reach 7400, Rayo’s function grows so fast that it is almost certainly possible that the value is greater than S(2^65536-1), S() is a function that is growing faster than ANY COMPUTABLE FUNCTION, faster than G, faster than Tree, and so on And Rayo’s number has the input set at a googol. The number would certainly be so big that the number would not only lose its meaning, but any number or symbols or machines that can enclose an iota of its being will certainly collapse into a black hole, for there isn’t close to enough information to store the concept of Rayo’s number
Even with all these numbers combined, they are like the number 0 compared to infinity. No matter how big the number is, it will be still be the same distance to infinity than 1 is.
Wholly underrated... I expected it to have a couple of thousands of subscriber with all of those transitions and hooking me into thay content. Those demonstrations were also on point. I believe you'll have a very succesful career in RUclips in the near-future, given such pristine quality of work os assured. There are some mistakes here, you have mentioned them in the comments yourself, but, hey, people learn from mistakes. A master has made a multitude of more mistakes than the beginner has tried. You got this. Edit: Oh yeah, the music was fire too, very on-spot music that goes with the video.
The thing I like about TREE is that you don't need ANY underlying mathematics beyond early grade school to understand the rules unlike pretty much every other 'big' number.
Inaccessible cardinal (I): THE LARGEST NUMBER CROWN IS MINE KIDS- Mahlo cardinal (M): What did you just said, young man? Weakly compact cardinal (K): Excuse me sir, what are you saying about that we are kids? Indescribable cardinal (**impossible to describe**): This place is not to say in chat that we are kids. Rank-into-rank cardinal (RIR): Should we remove him from here? Absolute Infinity(Ω): I think we should.
What I find funny about the googolplex is that it’s physically impossible to write. Even if you counted every atom as a Zero you’d still need something for the one. Honestly, this kind of raises the question of the point of the existence of such a number. Math is supposed to describe existence, and this can’t compute anything at all (unless we find a way to access parallel universes) and it isn’t possibly comprehensible by the average person.
I was thinking of mentioning Rayo's number, actually but I felt like the video was getting too long. Same story with SSCG(3). As for infinity, I actually have an entire sequel planned about different infinities.
@@jasonzawtun LNGN (Large Number Garden Number) is a number that was meant to be the largest number, but it is ill-defined so Rayo's Number is the largest "defined" number.
I mean 1000000 isn't too hard to grasp as a 1920x1080 screen has a little over 2M pixels. But this video did make me realize how big a googol (as well as googolplex 'n googolplexian) actually is
Here's a function that generates kinda medium numbers : note that W is called Omega: W(0)=S(0)=1 W(1)= 1+1 =2 W(2)= 2×2 =4 W(3)= 3³ = 27 W(4)= 4 tetrated to 4 almost 2⁵¹³ W(5)= 5 pentated to 5 And so on
Timestamps 0:00 Introduction 0:41 Multiplication 1:00 Multiplication by itself 1:10 Exponentiation 1:34 Powers of 10 2:15 Googol 2:23 Googolplex 2:48 Power Towers 3:01 Tetration 3:25 Hyperoprations 3:44 g[x] Function 4:24 Grahams Number 5:00 Lets play the TREE game! 5:33 TREE(X) Function 6:05 TREE(3) and beyond 6:57 Outro
Remember, these large numbers are pointless in any circumstance. The biggest number that will ever be valid is 1e+82, that number is the amount of atoms in the known universe. If you’re wondering why, this is targeted at the people who make spammy music who claim to say ‘I mAdE a SoNg WiTh 1.63e+118 BPM’ like no one cares about a stupid number beyond the atoms of the universe.
sick video! the music was pretty cool also at 3:15, don't power towers work by working out the highest power first instead of the lowest, so instead of 2^2^2^2^2 = 4^2^2^2 = 16^2^2 = 256^2 = 65536, it would be 2^2^2^2^2 = 2^2^2^4 = 2^2^16 = 2^65536 ≈ 2×10¹⁹²⁷⁸? i could be wrong, but this is a way more way of interpreting power towers to make much bigger numbers lol anyway, nice video once again, i liked the narration 👍
Thanks very much and thank you for pointing out that mistake, you're 100% correct. I think what happened is that I accidentally put 2 tetrated to 4 rather than 2 tetrated to 5 but, by a quirk of the maths, it comes out to equal the same as 2 tetrated to 5 if you calculate the power tower from the top. Thank you again for your kind words and for discovering that error which is now mentioned in the pinned comment.
00:02 if you type 1+1 into a calculator you get 2. +1=3+1=4 ect ect. My math class once gathered around my desk watching intently as I spammed that number all the way to 1000 was awesome
@@Datscrazi231 at one point it’s not about knowing numbers it’s about sheer will, also in my country we do kindergarten when we’re 4-5-6 I was almost 6
@@276З ohh alright. I still doubt that you had enough concentration to count until 1800 when you're 6. Most 6 yr old kids know how to count to like 100 and they kinda max out at that.
3:06 I don't even have to do the math to know that 2 to the tetration of 5 is WAY more than 5 figures. I still will, though. 2tet2: 16 2tet3: 2^16=65536 See?
Since you asked so kindly: You are using the lowercase tree function, not as fast growing as the uppercase tree function or TREE function. Since irrational numbers don't work with tree, those letter Is in "Irritating" along with all the other letters. This could be rewritten as tree((3i)2r)(2t)ang) In all seriousness though, a passive aggressive comment probably isn't the best way to get a person to listen to you. Instead, try respectfully pointing out the issue, it's crazy how much nicer you come across.
I'm a little bit disappointed that you didn't go into the limits of computation in such a video. There are functions out there which are equal to a certain number but it's unprovable what number they're equal to.
Several quick notes:
Yes, I am aware of SSCG(3) and Rayo's number but I thought that the video would drag on a little.
There are several minor errors with the visuals. Specifically at 3:19 where it says that 65536 is 2 tetrated to 5 rather than 2 tetrated to 4 and at 6:31 where it shows TREE(10^10) when I say "TREE(googol)" when it should show TREE(10^100)
When talking about graham's number, I said that g0 was 3 hexated to 3 but actually that's g1 and g0 isn't really a thing.
I excluded infinity because I intend to make another video covering exclusively infinities.
At 4:56 I display G↑ᴳ but, in actuality, this is an incomplete equation because you need another number on the other side of the equation. I basically just wrote the equivalent of "5 +" without a second number.
Sorry about the music being a little too loud.
Edit: Yes, everyone. I am writing a script for a sequel. You can stop mentioning SSCG(3), Rayo's number, BIG FOOT, the fast-growing hierarchy, etc...
Have you heard of the DaVinci number, made by DV103
Infinity is an idea of something which does not have an end, not a number. That is another reason why no one should mention infinity as a largest number in their video about googology.
@@Nikewertz__ Precisely, though infinity does serve as a sort of sister mathematical branch to googology so one could still assume I would cover it, which is why I gave another explanation as to why it's not covered.
@@RandomAndgit I forgot to mention the Fast Growing Hierarchy, which uses infinite ordinals to create unfathomably large numbers.
@@RandomAndgit Also how are numbers that are as great as or greater than 10^1060 even usable, or calculatable? Because the highest number that computer systems can ever understand is 10^1054 after that going one value higher than that number will make the computer round it out to either "Nan" (which stands for not a number,) or the computer will round the number out to Infinity, So how did we even discover these numbers? 🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐
"we cannot meet giants, but we may glimpse them on the horizon, and bask in their radiance" is such a fire line
Thank you very much! I write short stories in my spare time alongside making videos so I like trying to be a little eloquent in my scripts.
@@RandomAndgit oh nice!
Yes
@@oboo1225 I bet😊
@@oboo1225 I bet
"hey you want TREE(3) chips"
"what"
and then they were crushed under the unfathomable mass of an impossible number of chips
This has no right to be as funny as it is.
That amount of chips would have so much mass that it would probably collapse the universe into a singularity
@@gregg8721 I am now tempted to make a video looking at what would happen if there were actually TREE(3) chips.
I would 100% watch that
Also a bit of unrequested feedback, the video was really great but the audio mixing was a touch off, I found it a bit hard at times to understand what you’re saying over the music. Just lower the volume of the music and maybe raise your mic volume a bit and it should be fine :)
@@gregg8721 Thanks for the feedback! I 100% agree. I'll make sure to improve the audio balancing on my next video.
*The mathematicians version of "whatever you said times 1 billion"*
Edit: to be fair, the name of this video was "The Biggest Number" or something like that when I made this comment.
Bro there is no largest number ever
Well, the bigger numbers mentioned in the video were created with math "proofs", how their function works and they are mostly "computable", it's just that the computation part will never end. What you described is called as "salad numbers" in googology math.
Remember, every giant number in this video is closer to 0 than it is closer to infinity
It is the number of numbers it’s not on the number line you and I use
It is on mine tho @@griffinthegreat4873
@@griffinthegreat4873yes, it is. It's just after all the finite numbers (Before too if it's unsigned).
@@Judy-of-JudylandInfinity isn't a number. It isn't something we can reach by looking far enough. It is the number line. Infinity is the amount of all the numbers, it isn't among them. I'll end this off with a question. If you had an infinitely tall stack of 20$ bills and an infinitely tall stack of 1$ bills, which one has more money?
@@tkienjoyer the same amount of money.
If you have a stack of zero $20 bills and a stack of zero $1 bills, which one has more money?
Also, what's the difference between an amount and a cardinal number?
7 is pretty big
8 is quite big, too.
@@thejadekatana8891 lets not get ahead of ourselfs
9 is a big number as well.
8th liek 🐎
10 is pretty big too
You may have science on your side, but you'll never beat that one kid at the playground.
No one can ever defeat the kid who just adds 1.
@@RandomAndgit +2
@@Micotube-z5q +3
@@RandomAndgitjust say i
@@RandomAndgitthe kid that adds 2
Could I have TREE(3) croissants, please? Keep the change
Of course!
This is a ubermarket, these croissants are at isle TREE(540) pentated to 8
That would be $TREE(4).
Oh just make sure you don't slip in the puddle TREE(TREE(g45))^^^3 miles from here, we accidentally knocked over TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(60^^^^^^^^g69))))^^^^^^^^g64 bottles of water, each containing TREE(g64) ounces of water each
Sure, just go to aisle TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(g65)))) and make sure you don’t knock over the newly made section, it is still under construction and you will be get a TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(g(g(g(291))))))))$ fine for breaking it, and also that’ll be TREE(g(20572))$ hexated to a googolplex sir
That will be TREE^TREE(3)(3)
-Hello! Can I have f_10(10(↑10)10) Bottles of water, please.
-Man, what are you talking about...
Bruu
Can I get Uhm googolplexian pizzas+bloqueo colasgoogolchime
TREE(3) beers
@@bigchungususand then they drowned in an unfathomable amount of beer
The funniest part about TREE(3) is that the first color is “burnt” after the first tree and you build the entire rest with two colors only.
The fact that there are more possible chess combinations than atoms in the universe just blows my mind.
Didn't expect an absolute cinema on comically large numbers
"hey, you want some 5 pentated to 5 chips?"
"man, what is wrong with you."
*dies of major pressure under the unimaginable mass of an unfathomable amount of chips*
5:35 I love the way he says TREE so violently. As if it was a prequel to his explaination of this crazy ass number
The thing that always sticks in my throat with these numbers is that for Graham's Number we can see how it's constructed and why it's so large, but Tree(3) et al are described as "omg like, SOOOOO big... you can't even..." without any attempt to ever SHOW with even a hand-waving attempt at the operations used to BEGIN the climb to it.
To try to wrap your head around how fast TREE grows: what do you think is larger, G(TREE(3)), or TREE(4)? The answer is TREE(4) and it's not even close.
Excelently put.
tree function is like my sister counting, 1, 3, a number beyond human comprehension
SSCG even beats TREE so badly. SSCG(4) is much larger than TREE(SSCG(3))
@@True_Base69891 oh, SSCG is a beast above and beyond. SSCG(3) is larger than TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE...(3)))) nested TREE(3) times.
Essentially, SSCG is a generalized version of the TREE problem that works with graphs of any type, so TREE is damned to lose to it.
@@fawfulfan busy beaver solos
“Hey look, theres a TREE(3)”
Tree?, i dont see any trees
“no, TREE(3)”
ohhhh.
“Ok how much ketchup do you want?”
“Tree(3)”
“What?”
“Tree(3)!
Now, Rayo's number _is_ obviously big.
But it's still less than the number of years until Nintendo announces a new F-Zero game.
Nahhhh that game gonna take so long that it's coming out after the death of the universe 💀💀
Fun fact: when i was sick, i had a nightmare of dividing, subtracting, multiplying, adding numbers at the same time
And now i become math, the destroyer of brains
I smell UNDERRATED
*gasp* SOUP!? YO WHAT’S UPPP!!!
@@jeiemtcoSoup is here
w recommendations soup earth
underrated channel...
This video is such an epic masterpiece that no number mentioned could rate it
Thank you! 'Tis much appreciated.
Hey, you want 3 hexated by 3 sodas?
“Huh?”
*dies under the high pressure of too much carbonated water*
I love math sociological horror
7:06 someone who counted to a million: *sits in the corner and laughs maniacally*
Never would've thought numbers can be this exciting
*laughs in SSCG(3)*
*laughs in Memellakapowa Oompa*
*laughs in Tar(3)*
*Laughs in rayo's number*
*Laughs in infinity*
great video however 65536 is 2 tertiated to 4 not 5.
Oh, so it is. My mistake. Sorry about that.
"How many fries u want?"
"⁵SSCG(SSCG)^TREE(3)"
"What."
"I SAID⁵SSCG(SSCG)^TREE(3) FRIES!"
"😧"
Rayo’s number gets mentioned a lot here, and I would like to bring up some fun properties of Rayo’s function used to construct such number
The function grows linearly when the input value is small: with 10 first order set theory symbols you can write 1, with 30 you can write 2. Seems slow right?
This is not the case however as it grows faster. By 300 you have the function growing at the rate of multiplication, by 340 you have it grow at the rate of exponentiation, and by 400 the rate becomes tetration. And we’re not talking about the actual value of Rayo’s function; no, this is just a lower bound. If I remember correctly, RAYO(380) is at least greater than 2^65536
By the time you reach 7400, Rayo’s function grows so fast that it is almost certainly possible that the value is greater than S(2^65536-1), S() is a function that is growing faster than ANY COMPUTABLE FUNCTION, faster than G, faster than Tree, and so on
And Rayo’s number has the input set at a googol. The number would certainly be so big that the number would not only lose its meaning, but any number or symbols or machines that can enclose an iota of its being will certainly collapse into a black hole, for there isn’t close to enough information to store the concept of Rayo’s number
0:03 I’ve counted to 512 in binary on my fingers
Yo bro you want a Rayo(g64) pieces of gum?
Me: wait whuh *realizes* OH SHI-
*universe collapses due to the FUCKING PIECES OF GUM*
Hey, want Rayo(10^100) skittles?
What?
*dies*
This is my fanmade giant number called "Every single positive number combined ⁄✻⁄"
+1
Number 1 is there@@BigyetiTechnologies
@@BigyetiTechnologiesWell, that is a positive number, so it is contained in that number.
Yes it is, @@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj.
Little Biggedon: 🗿
Utter oblivion: 🗿
The Whopper: 🗿
Rayo’s number: 🗿
I thought about this so hard i know half of the meaing of life and i kinda love it
Amazing video, but the music was a little loud. Maybe lower it some. Awesome video, great explanation of TREE
Thank you! And thank you for your feedback as well, I'll try to improve the audio balancing next time.
You just blow my mind. I’m glad I ran into your video ❤
TREE(10000000): HAHAHA
∞: shut up
TREE(TREE(3))-(TREE(TREE(2)+TREE(6): Why not rename me to FOREST(1)?
Γ0: no infinity you shut up
Utter oblivion: infinities are infinities, which include they are also all not numbers, and instead a concept of never ending.
TREE(TREE(7)-TREE(TREE(6)-TREE(TREE(5)...: IDK what to say but im smaller
@@harkevicsGDψ(Ω_ω): no one asked
Even with all these numbers combined, they are like the number 0 compared to infinity. No matter how big the number is, it will be still be the same distance to infinity than 1 is.
Wholly underrated... I expected it to have a couple of thousands of subscriber with all of those transitions and hooking me into thay content. Those demonstrations were also on point. I believe you'll have a very succesful career in RUclips in the near-future, given such pristine quality of work os assured. There are some mistakes here, you have mentioned them in the comments yourself, but, hey, people learn from mistakes. A master has made a multitude of more mistakes than the beginner has tried. You got this.
Edit: Oh yeah, the music was fire too, very on-spot music that goes with the video.
Thank you very much! I'm always trying to improve.
The thing I like about TREE is that you don't need ANY underlying mathematics beyond early grade school to understand the rules unlike pretty much every other 'big' number.
Inaccessible cardinal (I): THE LARGEST NUMBER CROWN IS MINE KIDS-
Mahlo cardinal (M): What did you just said, young man?
Weakly compact cardinal (K): Excuse me sir, what are you saying about that we are kids?
Indescribable cardinal (**impossible to describe**): This place is not to say in chat that we are kids.
Rank-into-rank cardinal (RIR): Should we remove him from here?
Absolute Infinity(Ω): I think we should.
why did that go so hard 2:30
I am learning so much math 💀
What I find funny about the googolplex is that it’s physically impossible to write. Even if you counted every atom as a Zero you’d still need something for the one.
Honestly, this kind of raises the question of the point of the existence of such a number. Math is supposed to describe existence, and this can’t compute anything at all (unless we find a way to access parallel universes) and it isn’t possibly comprehensible by the average person.
TREE(3) to SSCG(3) to Rayo's Number. Rayo's number the biggest number ever defined so Infinity.
Rayo's Number ↑↑↑ 5 = MY NUMBER!!!!!!!!!!
I was thinking of mentioning Rayo's number, actually but I felt like the video was getting too long. Same story with SSCG(3). As for infinity, I actually have an entire sequel planned about different infinities.
Where LNGN and DaVinci number
@@Xnoob545 As with the others, they were cut for the sake of time, but a sequel is definitely a possibility.
@@Xnoob545Huh?
@@jasonzawtun LNGN (Large Number Garden Number) is a number that was meant to be the largest number, but it is ill-defined so Rayo's Number is the largest "defined" number.
don't forget the busy beaver numbers, or rayos, tree(3) is just the beginning, the means to an end of comprehension
I mean 1000000 isn't too hard to grasp as a 1920x1080 screen has a little over 2M pixels. But this video did make me realize how big a googol (as well as googolplex 'n googolplexian) actually is
Crazy how every number and shapes where made by himself
Here's a function that generates kinda medium numbers : note that W is called Omega:
W(0)=S(0)=1
W(1)= 1+1 =2
W(2)= 2×2 =4
W(3)= 3³ = 27
W(4)= 4 tetrated to 4 almost 2⁵¹³
W(5)= 5 pentated to 5
And so on
then 1e+990099= W(34)
Les choix des musiques sont absolument GOATESQUES !
tree(48763467683767847876779G) pentrated by itself
That would be pretty big.
and still all those numbers are closer to 0 than ∞
Infinity is crazy.
and still infinity is closer to 0 than all uncountable cardinals
FAST GROWING HIERARCHY
@@Nikewertz__ Worry not! I plan on covering them in the infinity video (because you can't reach numbers like The Feferman-Schütte ordinal without one)
Infinity isn't a number, so it can't be compared to a number.
My brain is literally zoning out and daydreaming, your video is fine though.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
0:41 Multiplication
1:00 Multiplication by itself
1:10 Exponentiation
1:34 Powers of 10
2:15 Googol
2:23 Googolplex
2:48 Power Towers
3:01 Tetration
3:25 Hyperoprations
3:44 g[x] Function
4:24 Grahams Number
5:00 Lets play the TREE game!
5:33 TREE(X) Function
6:05 TREE(3) and beyond
6:57 Outro
I love the music. It makes the video so epic!
Wish math class was like this bruh
g64
3 plus 3=6
3 cubed=27
3 exponent=
Can't believe you didn't even touch on the fast growing hierarchy.
I know, I know. I'll have to make a sequel.
Damn that was epic af
TREE(3) JINXS
that one kid, Tree(3)+1
What about absolute infinity?
@robinpinar9691 That one kid: absolute infinity plus 100^10
Remember, these large numbers are pointless in any circumstance. The biggest number that will ever be valid is 1e+82, that number is the amount of atoms in the known universe.
If you’re wondering why, this is targeted at the people who make spammy music who claim to say ‘I mAdE a SoNg WiTh 1.63e+118 BPM’ like no one cares about a stupid number beyond the atoms of the universe.
Damn, that must be high than 12
Fun fact: 7 is bigger then 6
Again: 6 is smaller then 7
Does anyone else start laughing for no reason when trying to visualize living as many years long as these numbers?
sick video! the music was pretty cool
also at 3:15, don't power towers work by working out the highest power first instead of the lowest, so instead of 2^2^2^2^2 = 4^2^2^2 = 16^2^2 = 256^2 = 65536, it would be 2^2^2^2^2 = 2^2^2^4 = 2^2^16 = 2^65536 ≈ 2×10¹⁹²⁷⁸? i could be wrong, but this is a way more way of interpreting power towers to make much bigger numbers lol
anyway, nice video once again, i liked the narration 👍
Thanks very much and thank you for pointing out that mistake, you're 100% correct. I think what happened is that I accidentally put 2 tetrated to 4 rather than 2 tetrated to 5 but, by a quirk of the maths, it comes out to equal the same as 2 tetrated to 5 if you calculate the power tower from the top. Thank you again for your kind words and for discovering that error which is now mentioned in the pinned comment.
To interpret power towers that way, i'd personally parenthesis them, as so: 2^(2^(2^(2^2)))
Nah I feel like around 1990s is big enough, also the best decade
4:03
the value of 3 hexated to 3 is 7,625,597,484,987.
you mean a 7,625,597,484,987-height power towers of 3?
bro should have mentioned buchholz ordinal and busy beaver
Good idea except that the Buchholz ordinal is an infinity so it wouldn't work in this video.
00:02 if you type 1+1 into a calculator you get 2. +1=3+1=4 ect ect. My math class once gathered around my desk watching intently as I spammed that number all the way to 1000 was awesome
Rayo's number: "watch *this* "
“∀R {
{
∀[ψ], s: R([ψ],t) ↔ ([ψ] = "xi ∈ xj" ∧ t(xi) ∈ t(xj))
∨ ([ψ] = "xi = xj" ∧ t(xi) = t(xj))
∨ ([ψ] = "(¬θ)" ∧ ¬R([θ], t))
∨ ([ψ] = "(θ∧ξ)" ∧ R([θ], t) ∧ R([ξ], t))
∨ ([ψ] = "∃xi(θ)" ∧ ∃t′: R([θ], t′))
(where t′ is a copy of t with xi changed)
} ⇒ R([ϕ],s)
}”
I’d imagine this’d come with that Thanos-beatboxing sound effect but with Agustín Rayo in MIT’s big number duel.
inf:ur so micro
As a TREE(TREE(TREE...), I can conclude that this number is way bigger than Graham's
inf: f^$^g64^$%##&$%
Missed opportunity... Tree of tree function should have been called forest function.
Underrated
Around 800 0:03
Once as a kid i decided to count in my head, i got to over 1000 before i got bored
I counted to 1800 on the way back from kindergarten once
@@276Зno kindergarden kid knows more than 10
@@Datscrazi231 at one point it’s not about knowing numbers it’s about sheer will, also in my country we do kindergarten when we’re 4-5-6 I was almost 6
@@276З ohh alright. I still doubt that you had enough concentration to count until 1800 when you're 6. Most 6 yr old kids know how to count to like 100 and they kinda max out at that.
1911929492015912520 seems like it’s be a pretty big number (if you somehow decipher this good job)
20 8 1 14 11 19 9 20 23 1 19 16 18 5 20 20 25 6 21 14 20 15 4 5 3 15 4 5
2:14 This is also called “Ogol”
Okay so hear me out
TREE(4).
Hey man! Good video, nice explanations
Windows ultimate world part 29 that's some number
Agustín Rayo: hold my beer
Well my opinion is TREE(3) but thats a small baby to Utter Oblivion.
2 is average, 3 is big, 4 is huge
I’ve learned more math in this video than in school
Wow, thanks.. Though, that's not really saying much since the school system is awful when it comes to maths.
Infinity be like: … that’s it?
Googolplexianth is my favorite big number
The dude that playing ninja legend and sword fighter simulator on Roblox.
counted to like 3000 while trying to get some sleep
Impressive.
2:10 10^80 = 100 quinvigintillion
Something Higher than TREE(3) is SSCG(3)
As I mentioned in the pinned comment, I omitted it for the sake of time and engagement.
Indeed, SSCG(3) is much greater than TREE(TREE(TREE.....TREE(3)....))) where the number of TREEs is TREE(3). It's mind-boggling.
this video is so underrated u deserve a like + sub bro
3:06
I don't even have to do the math to know that 2 to the tetration of 5 is WAY more than 5 figures. I still will, though.
2tet2: 16
2tet3: 2^16=65536
See?
Yes, as I mentioned in the pinned comment, I accidentally put 2 ^^ 4 instead. Sorry about that!
Another channel where they think music MUST be louder than the spoken word. Tree(Irritating)
Since you asked so kindly: You are using the lowercase tree function, not as fast growing as the uppercase tree function or TREE function. Since irrational numbers don't work with tree, those letter Is in "Irritating" along with all the other letters. This could be rewritten as tree((3i)2r)(2t)ang)
In all seriousness though, a passive aggressive comment probably isn't the best way to get a person to listen to you. Instead, try respectfully pointing out the issue, it's crazy how much nicer you come across.
TREE(3) is nothing compared to the two gods (infinity and…
ABSOLUTE INFINITY)
I activated a brain cell
Good job!
mom: we have manim at home
I'm a little bit disappointed that you didn't go into the limits of computation in such a video. There are functions out there which are equal to a certain number but it's unprovable what number they're equal to.