Yes, exactly! Nearly all natural numbers are bigger. Anyway I find it more difficult to understand Graham's number, TREE(3) or others than infinity. Strange....
Remember that infinity isn't a number, just a symbol representing the theoretical idea of a never-ending set of something. It's possible that everything is finite, even time itself.
A quintillion is pretty easy to imagine in the real-life scale. Imagine a small cube with an edge of one millimeter. Then imagine a cube with a one kilometer edge. There is one quintillion millimeter-cubes in a single kilometer-cube.
@@robertmichel8456 That’s what I though until I found something. See, cubic meters grow 3 times as fast as regular meters. 1 km = 10^6 mm 1 squared km = 10^12 squared mm 1 cubic km = 10^18 cubic mm Here, he is talking about cubic km and cubic mm, so the correct equation is the third one. Thank you for understanding.
Unfortunately, this video doesn't explain what Graham's Number is. Fortunately, I can try. I start with some simple calculations most people should understand. 3+3 = 6 3*3 = 3+(3+3) = 9 3^3 = 3*(3*3) = 27 Now it becomes more complicated. The pattern above can be continued, but instead of the power notation one could also notate these numbers with upward arrows, but I will notate it with just "|". 3|3 = 3^3 = 3*(3*3) = 27 3||3 = 3|(3|3) = 3^3^3 = 7,625,597,484,987. Here this number can be expressed as a "tower" of three exponentials. 3|||3 = 3||(3||3) = 3^3^...^3, a tower of 3||3 exponentials, on which the first calculation has to be done at the top of the tower. 3||||3 = 3|||(3|||3), a number so gigantic it will just be expressed as "G1". To reach Graham's number this way it will still take a while. So I will skip some steps, but note that each time, we still keep the formula 3|||... (n 'arrows') ...|||3 = 3|||... (n-1 'arrows') ...|||(3|||... (n-1 'arrows') ...|||3). Until now we have yet reached n = 4 this way. 3|||... (4 'arrows') ...|||3 = G1 3|||... (G1 'arrows') ...|||3 = G2 3|||... (G2 'arrows') ...|||3 = G3 ... 3|||... (G63 'arrows') ...|||3 = G64 = Graham's number
Fun fact about Googolplex: If you were to write it out, each and every zero, you would run out of space. Even if you had the superpower to write a zero on every atom in the observable universe, you would still run out of space, as googolplex has 10^100 zeroes, but there are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire observable universe.
@silksonic3927 Rayo's number is more of a thought experiment. Nobody has a clue how the number is actually constructed, let alone what any of its digits are.
9:02 You're saying 10^94 books weigh as much as the Milky Way, when known atoms in the universe are 10^78. What am I missing here? They should weigh many magnitudes higher than all of the universe.
Yeah but there are objects in the Milky Way that are very small and very heavy such as neutron stars, and also we have at least 1 supermassive black hole which has a massive mass but relative to there mass don’t have atoms
@@WalidFeghali well the books were being used as a comparison they didn’t mean it literally, I could say the milky green at weighs 10^10^1000 cockroaches, I’m not saying there is that many
According to my calculations, even 1 googol quectometers minus the speed of light is still a positive number, which means rotating the 100th gear on the mechanism is faster than the speed of light.
Sean Arcade Dela cruz yes there is, the largest one digit number is 9, numbers larger than 9 are made up of other one digit numbers, 247 for example there’s a 2 a 4 and a 7. So if you use 9 and say 9 goes on forever, this would be the largest number, since 9 is the largest one digit number.
Uhhhhh how about a Beyond infinity googolplex Numwes X 999999999 It's beyond infinity its googol times bigger than infinity but its not the biggest number, a creator's number is bigger it would be almost infinite amount of seconds for you to write it all in one book but of course its inpossible because our sun will be a red giant and kill us all before that.
Just to take into context how big Graham's number really is: (this is knots up arrow notation (just assume the lines in between the 3s are arrow ups)) 3|3= 27 3||3=7.6Trillion 3|||3= really big number 3||||3= G1 3||||...|[G1 no of arrows] 3 = G2 3||||...|[G2 no of arrows] 3= G3 . . . G64= Grahams number
You didn't even define Graham's Number. Now that we have specifically defined all of these things and given concrete examples of them in the universe, here is a term that is bigger with no definition, no comprehension, and no context. End of video.
@@billmanbillman7894 There's many more larger numbers than TREE(3). Rayo's number would be F(n) = The least number that cannot be uniquely described by an expression of first-order set theory that contains no more than n symbols. Rayo's number is then just F(10^100) though, we can still go even further with G(n) such that G(n) grows more quickly than F(n). At the end, these numbers still remain within the finite realm, once you leave you'll face with multiple infinities. The smallest infinity being Aleph 0, followed by Aleph 1, Aleph 2, Aleph 3...
@@welcometoreality437 if you use functions to define big numbers, it just gets boring... The point of TREE(3) and Graham's number is that they define really cool concepts, and are used in mathematical theories. TREE(3) describes the number of nodes you can build in a tree of 3 different nodes, and graham's number describes huge numbers of dimensions and vertecies (I'm not a mathematician, I just watch numberphile, so don't believe what I'm saying do the research)
If Graham’s number is far bigger than all the Planck volume in the known universe, and since a dollar bill is much larger than a Planck volume, then Graham’s number in US dollars would be much, much more massive than what you showed in your thumbnail. Graham’s number dollars is much, much more than filling the whole universe with 100 dollar bills.
If you put the amount of atoms in the observable universe as the amount of arrows between something like a googol and a googolplex, you would still be nowhere near graham's number.
Imagine knowing this when u were a kids . Arguments who is more stupid would have interesting results. Like “ no ur stupid Grahams number times!” “ noooo ur stupid Grahams number plus 1!”
Fun fact: the possible combinations of well shuffled playing cards in a 52 card deck is 52! ( 52x51x50....x2x1) which is 8x10 to the 67th power..and is greater than the number of atoms on/in the Earth
“10^94 books would weigh more than the Milky Way galaxy.” Umm, I should hope so, since there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. Did they forget that fact half way through the video? Smh.
@@sorry6726 so what? Doesnt change the fact that he stated there are 10^80 atoms in the (known) universe, yet 10^94 books would weigh as much as the whole galaxy. That doesnt add up. Unless you now a way to print a book on 10^-15 atoms
If you manually turned the last wheel All the way around in 1 second, would that then make the first wheel go faster then the speed of light? I know its not possible for it to go faster, and btw.. I feel like it would take an extreme amount of force to spin the last wheel?
The speed of light, or the speed of information is closely related to infinity. You need a literal infinite amount of energy, to bring the machine up to that speed. Witch btw. i guess, only takes around 10 decimals off of 1 Googol seconds; down to 10 to the power of 90 seconds. What you revering to, is imagined Information. A shadow for example "can" travel over the speed of light, but only because it is the absence of stuff (light casting the shadow). Imagine you casting a shadow on the moon with your hand. That shadow can now move over light speed with a simple hand gesture but your hand and the light around your shadow still cant. Anything out of mater simply cant do that. The machine would break or you would never have enough juice to reach over lightspeed RPM.
How about instead of people saying “The gears would Just break” make stronger gears⚙️? Very simple solution then attach a fucking 9000hp engine to the Gears and spin that bastard as hard as possible it would still probably take a long time but its still faster than doing it yourself 😂🤷♂️ get something graphene for the gears and you’re all set
.. Somewhere between “ 8 toffees for 1 rupee” and “1 toffee for 8 rupees”, we grew up! Somewhere between “Ground mai aaja” (Come to the park) and “Online aaja”, (Come online) we grew up! Somewhere between “stealing chocolate of our sister” and “Buying chocolate for her children”, we grew up! Somewhere between “Just five more mins Maa” and “Pressing the snooze button”, we grew up! Somewhere between “Crying out loud just to get what we want” and “Holding our tears when we are broken inside”, we grew up! Somewhere between “I want to grow up” and “I want to be a child again”, we grew up! Somewhere between “Lets meet and plan” and “Lets plan and meet”, we grew up! Somewhere between "Being afraid of our parents" and "Praying for our parents" we finally grew up And as we grew up, we realize; How silently, our lives have changed.....
Riddddle: "A Billion. Now this is where it gets serious." My teacher:"What type of serious activities Have you Kids Been doing Today?" Me:"*A Billion.*" Teacher: "Wh-" Me:"*A BILLION!*"
2:17 ''its unlikely anyone chould count to a billion,its almost 32 years me: *counts to a billion in less then 10 seconds* ''you understemate my power''
Ummmm There's a black hole named TON 618 and has a mass of 66,000,000,000 suns. The third largest galaxy in our galactic local group (the triangulum galaxy) has a mass of 50,000,000,000 suns. The amount of matter needed to make that black hole is literally more than the amount needed to make a major galaxy.
Graham’s Number isn’t just too big to write on every atom in the universe (a googol is also too big for that), Graham’s Number is too big to write on every Planck distance in the universe. A Planck is the smallest possible measurable distance, about 1.6 x 10^(-35) metres. If you measured the width of an atom in Planck lengths, counting 1 Planck a second, it would take 1.38 quadrillion years. Graham’s number is way bigger than all of those distances in the observable universe. Graham’s Number is too big to be written even in the “to the power of” format (e.g. a googol = 10^100). Graham’s Number is unfathomably colossal, and yet still closer to 0 than to being infinite.
And as very, very hard as I try.....I will never be able to even begin to sensibly contemplate how small a Planck length is!! I keep saying to myself.......'There's no way man, that just can't be!!' It truly is mind boggling^1000!!
The number of digits of Graham's number is also a number too large to fit into the universe The number of digits in THAT number is ALSO a number too large to fit into the universe How many times would we need to repeat the process of writing down the number of digits in the previous number before we'd get a number that would fit into the universe? That number of times is also too large to fit into the universe.
There's a lot of different large numbers lol Smith's number, Googolplexian, Skewes Number, Tree(3), etc. He made the video 10 minutes long since you can fit a few more ads in a relatively short video.
It blew my mind when my teacher pointed out that there are an infinite numbers between 0 and 1. It was the first time I really grasped how hard it is to grasp the concept of infinity.
Graham number; Even if you put the each digit in each Planck volume(smallest measured amount of space) in the universe, still number of Graham digits will be left.
And yet still lilliputian when compared with TREE(3), SSCG(3), Fish 7, Rayo's Number, and Ω and Busy Beaver numbers, the latter two of which rapidly take you into uncomputable numbers.
I read somewhere that theoretical physicists reckon Graham's number will one day be used to measure the size of the multiverse and a method to traverse it.
@@Incepter. Probably a lot. Graham's Number is an absurd power tower of 3's (3 to the 3 to the 3 to the 3..... for a while). The digits will be seemingly random, so there will be a lot of zeros due to the nature of randomness. There's clever tricks mathematicians use to figure out the last couple hundred digits of Graham's Number, but no one knows the first digit (At least in base 10. In bases 2 and 3 it's a one). No one even knows how many digits you would need to write it down. The only way to understand Graham's Number is the way it's constructed (similar to pi or the square root of 2). Digits are obsolete when it comes to a number so large. Numberphile made a good video on Graham's Number. It's a little hard to wrap your mind around how to construct it, especially if you're unfamiliar with exponents. All you really need to know is that it's a biggy boi.
@@Incepter. In a sense you're right. There is no point in counting up to Graham's Number. First, it's physically impossible to count that high. Second, even IF you could count that high, you would have a very hard time knowing when you actually hit Graham's Number. Now being able to count up to a number isn't the only reason to justify its utility. The reason behind the discovery of Graham's Number was in a mathematical proof to set an upper bound to a higher-dimensional problem. I am not the best person to ask what exactly this proof was or how exactly the number was discovered, so I recommend looking up other videos that do better justice to the number over a youtube comment.
Mmm i don’t know, it’s really hard to believe that in the WHOLE observable universe there aren’t enough atoms to reach a googol. How would a group of scientists even estimate that?
@Suvojit Mukherjee It's an estimate but that doesn't mean it isn't also the truth. There is an imprecision (or uncertainty) in the numbers and no scientist would claim otherwise but that doesn't mean they are inaccurate. While we may never be able to know 100%, we can never know anything with certainty, that doesn't stop us from being able to make predictions and take actions based on our knowledge.
Hey Ridddle could you do the Halo Announcer Voice ? I really wanna hear your take on it. Hearing you say "double kill", "Killtrocity" and "Flag captured" would be awesomee
The HPD(n) function: HPD(n) = n^^^^(7^20) HPD(7) is so large that it would take millions of years to calculate. Imagine HPD(HPD(9000)) HPD stands for HyperProDigious. The TREE(n) function: TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(g63)))) Generates a ridiculously large number that cannot be calculated before the sun bursts.
Fun Fact: There are more combinations in a 52 set deck of cards than there are atoms in our universe. Edit: I was mistake, Fl05k8r is correct, still has an absurd amount of combinations.
If anyone wants an explanation of Graham’s number: Imagine 3^3, this means 3^3 3^^3 means 3^3^3 3^^^3 means 3^^3^^3 or 3^3^3^3^3 This is g(1) Now imagine 3^3 but with g(1) arrows, this is g(2) 3^3 but with g(2) arrows, this is g(3) Do this again and again until you get to g(64), Graham’s number
There are much bigger numbers out there than Graham's number... like TREE(3) , right off the top of my head... in fact, there are whole number systems that were created to describe numbers larger than Graham's number with only a few short letters, and according to the googology wiki, Graham's number is only a class 8 large number (Where TREE(3) is class 18) But if you want something REALLY big, you should look into Loader's number: the largest number a single C program (using a MAXIMUM of only 512 characters) can possibly create
@@hxuey Rayo's Number is mid-Class 20 level while Loader's Number is very high Class 19. Fast Growing Hierarchy ends at very high Class 19, right before Loader's Number.
@Kian Saliany I suppose but not in applied math, cause the theory of omega 1 plus omega 2 ,just keeps going infinite plus infinite . If I remember correctly , havnt seen vsauce in a while lol
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
"No matter How large a number is, It is still closer to 0 than to infinity"
Yes, exactly! Nearly all natural numbers are bigger. Anyway I find it more difficult to understand Graham's number, TREE(3) or others than infinity. Strange....
Not ending a quote annoys my SO MUCH
Aeronn Charles Camza no, 9 going on forever is the largest number therefore it’s closer to infinity
Remember that infinity isn't a number, just a symbol representing the theoretical idea of a never-ending set of something. It's possible that everything is finite, even time itself.
Hassan Ali Husseini same here
Even if I could spin the first gear at the speed of light. It still won't even come close to turning the last gear. :)
It has to eventually :D
Turn the wheel from the other side
@@chandlerstevens4498 undermined reply
Omg thats really you?
Wow... what is the farthest you have been
Has he tried spinning the mechanism from the other side? Imagine how fast the first wheel would spin xD
So fast it will break space time and reality in it's entirety will vanish... Literally the destroyer of the universe
But I am pretty sure it is just unisense spin
@Sentience100 erwinruff meant to spin the last gear instead of the first. That's a good question 😊
It needs an unimaginable force
U need all the energy in a black hole to do this.
A quintillion is pretty easy to imagine in the real-life scale.
Imagine a small cube with an edge of one millimeter.
Then imagine a cube with a one kilometer edge.
There is one quintillion millimeter-cubes in a single kilometer-cube.
Wouldn’t that be 1 million?
interesting
@@robertmichel8456 Cubic Metrics grow faster,
@@robertmichel8456 That’s what I though until I found something. See, cubic meters grow 3 times as fast as regular meters.
1 km = 10^6 mm
1 squared km = 10^12 squared mm
1 cubic km = 10^18 cubic mm
Here, he is talking about cubic km and cubic mm, so the correct equation is the third one. Thank you for understanding.
@@bkCheezburgor nice comma instead of period. it makes total sense to swap them like we are doing,
Unfortunately, this video doesn't explain what Graham's Number is. Fortunately, I can try. I start with some simple calculations most people should understand.
3+3 = 6
3*3 = 3+(3+3) = 9
3^3 = 3*(3*3) = 27
Now it becomes more complicated. The pattern above can be continued, but instead of the power notation one could also notate these numbers with upward arrows, but I will notate it with just "|".
3|3 = 3^3 = 3*(3*3) = 27
3||3 = 3|(3|3) = 3^3^3 = 7,625,597,484,987. Here this number can be expressed as a "tower" of three exponentials.
3|||3 = 3||(3||3) = 3^3^...^3, a tower of 3||3 exponentials, on which the first calculation has to be done at the top of the tower.
3||||3 = 3|||(3|||3), a number so gigantic it will just be expressed as "G1".
To reach Graham's number this way it will still take a while. So I will skip some steps, but note that each time, we still keep the formula 3|||... (n 'arrows') ...|||3 = 3|||... (n-1 'arrows') ...|||(3|||... (n-1 'arrows') ...|||3). Until now we have yet reached n = 4 this way.
3|||... (4 'arrows') ...|||3 = G1
3|||... (G1 'arrows') ...|||3 = G2
3|||... (G2 'arrows') ...|||3 = G3
...
3|||... (G63 'arrows') ...|||3 = G64 = Graham's number
Very compact explanation! :)
Your genius
Ctrl + c ctrl + v
Easy!
i don’t know what you said but it’s amazing
Well explained!
Me, an intellectual: *infinity*
Vsauce: **starts explaining why i’m wrong**
Lol
Hey! Vsauce, Michale here
Kian Saliany you are are right but it is a meme, yes omega is the biggest number, i know that, i’m not stupid like you’d like to think
Zack Max alif null is an example
You guys are such nerds^Googol
The thumbnail is horrifyingly out of scale
The one and only ikr
last one is mrbeast's money
Yeah graham's number isn't that 'small'
Yeah, u can only fit 10 to the power of 184 plank size object in the whole universe and a Graham’s number is way bigger than a googol
saranqxv googol is 10 to the 100th and but Graham’s number is so much big that difference doesn’t even matter at its scale
Fun fact about Googolplex: If you were to write it out, each and every zero, you would run out of space. Even if you had the superpower to write a zero on every atom in the observable universe, you would still run out of space, as googolplex has 10^100 zeroes, but there are only about 10^80 atoms in the entire observable universe.
Wow
notice how it is only observable. what about the undiscovered ? the mass that gets sucked in by a black hole?
@@skierx Oh true
You would need to write a 0 on every atom of 10^20 observable universes to write out googolplex.
shut up dude
You can only put a comma if you have 3 digits coming after it. The fact that you end with one zero irritates me.
Comment until it reaches to a googol
Extreme Demon Kill him
@@clickmaestro595 o.o
Id do this, 100.000.000.000,00
@Extreme Demon make him do that many attempts on ya
Also my friend says miliseconds ans hundrenths of seconds are the same lol
Was expecting him to start with “This is Arnold”
Same hahaa
Me too Vrlplex
Wait- Are they the same narator?
@@chibi_okami look at the subscription
@@chibi_okami but if it wasnt there its on the description
Skips the number "Sextillion" , Cause- yes.
ölölöööl
Oh uhhhh... XD yeah cuz it has the word sex in it
He's such a noob
@@shanghim680 I'm sorry what
@@nibsin noob
I love how mathematicians are always competing to see who can think of the number with the most zeros
I made a number eeeeion
It's really so much more than 'that.'
@silksonic3927 Rayo's number is more of a thought experiment. Nobody has a clue how the number is actually constructed, let alone what any of its digits are.
Search up Centillion
Think of HPD(n)
HPD(n) = n^^^^(7^20)
Biggest numbers in the world:
My student loan: am I a joke to you?
My knowledge:am i a Joke to you both?
@@golbox4
yes
@@SpaceIsAwesome035 then your wrong
Idk If this was a Joke but i laughed
@@golbox4
the comment is indeed a joke
@@golbox4 me who knows there are secert numbers bigger than infinity:my knowledge is beyond infinity.
So you’re telling me there are more possible game states in chess than there is atoms in the known universe
Yes
Yuo
Yes
Yesir
Key word is “known”
9:02 You're saying 10^94 books weigh as much as the Milky Way, when known atoms in the universe are 10^78. What am I missing here? They should weigh many magnitudes higher than all of the universe.
Yeah but there are objects in the Milky Way that are very small and very heavy such as neutron stars, and also we have at least 1 supermassive black hole which has a massive mass but relative to there mass don’t have atoms
@@saucysalamis9894 If you have more books than atoms in the universe, the books must weigh way more.
@@WalidFeghali well the books were being used as a comparison they didn’t mean it literally, I could say the milky green at weighs 10^10^1000 cockroaches, I’m not saying there is that many
There is 10^53 kg observable mass in the universe. All those books weigh more than 10^93 kg. I think they wrote it wrong in the video.
Because weight isn’t the same as volume
According to my calculations, even 1 googol quectometers minus the speed of light is still a positive number, which means rotating the 100th gear on the mechanism is faster than the speed of light.
“No one can count upto billion”
Senku: Am i joke to you?
Dude really counted to over 96 billion seconds
@@ohhimarx1471 count to 10³⁰³ (that's a centillion bty)
He had 3000 years no one can live that long
Conziltillion
@@Rainvill26 1 billion seconds is 30+ years dumbhead
I'm irritated that he doesn't describe the largest number.
Zahay Bone the largest number is 9 going on forever
ruclips.net/video/e0xJwdcpATM/видео.html
Graham’s number isn’t the largest number, the largest number with a non Semantic explanation is rayos number
Number is infinite. There are no exact highest number ever
Sean Arcade Dela cruz yes there is, the largest one digit number is 9, numbers larger than 9 are made up of other one digit numbers, 247 for example there’s a 2 a 4 and a 7. So if you use 9 and say 9 goes on forever, this would be the largest number, since 9 is the largest one digit number.
Riddle: Gogol
Me as an Intellectual: Ten Duotrigintillion
Me: One quintredecillion times a octononagintanongentillion
I thought a Googol was Ten Duotrigintillion?
@@wfow1448 sorry my mistake
@Ballyliffin Bros Not that I'm aware.
Uhhhhh how about a Beyond infinity googolplex Numwes X 999999999
It's beyond infinity its googol times bigger than infinity but its not the biggest number, a creator's number is bigger it would be almost infinite amount of seconds for you to write it all in one book but of course its inpossible because our sun will be a red giant and kill us all before that.
Robots in 10,000 years: counting every atom in the universe
Just to take into context how big Graham's number really is:
(this is knots up arrow notation (just assume the lines in between the 3s are arrow ups))
3|3= 27
3||3=7.6Trillion
3|||3= really big number
3||||3= G1
3||||...|[G1 no of arrows] 3 = G2
3||||...|[G2 no of arrows] 3= G3
.
.
.
G64= Grahams number
well G65 is bigger than that.
Gstack
Tree3 laughs about that
@@Srontgorrth SCG(13) hehe
@@andrewzhang8512
Rayo's number:
JAJAJAJA (laughing in Mexican)
If you counted to 1 million, your lips wouldn’t touch until you said “1 million”
Oh God you're right...
Damn son
Wrong. Say one without touching your lips
@@guya1018 h-how are you pronouncing "one"??
Wrong.
It really, REALLY bugs me that the "thousand-separator" commas are in the wrong places every time the googol is shown on screen.
I have a bigger number 1googolplexen it's 100googols to make Googleplexen
@@dumdum_plays a bigger number, the countable infinity
Do you have OCD or something?
@@dumdum_plays YOUR GRAMMAR AND SPELLING IS INCREDIBLE
@@dumdum_plays also 100 googol doesnt do anything
10 minutes you barely mentioned Graham's Number and you didn't even reference the thumbnail at all. Gonna be a "Do not recommend channel" from me.
Chuck Norris counted to infinity, TWICE!
Pfft I did it thrice
@@shurik3nz346 chuck norris?
Lmao
And he did it backwards the second time.
@@TheAgamemnon911 lol I love that 😄
You didn't even define Graham's Number.
Now that we have specifically defined all of these things and given concrete examples of them in the universe, here is a term that is bigger with no definition, no comprehension, and no context. End of video.
Haha! It's still not even close to Rayo's Number.
What's about TREE(3) and the SSCG-function?
҉ Paralativ i was just thinking this, grahams number, being as uncomprehensively large as it is, is miniscule in comparison to TREE(3)
@@billmanbillman7894 There's many more larger numbers than TREE(3). Rayo's number would be F(n) = The least number that cannot be uniquely described by an expression of first-order set theory that contains no more than n symbols. Rayo's number is then just F(10^100) though, we can still go even further with G(n) such that G(n) grows more quickly than F(n).
At the end, these numbers still remain within the finite realm, once you leave you'll face with multiple infinities. The smallest infinity being Aleph 0, followed by Aleph 1, Aleph 2, Aleph 3...
@@welcometoreality437 if you use functions to define big numbers, it just gets boring... The point of TREE(3) and Graham's number is that they define really cool concepts, and are used in mathematical theories. TREE(3) describes the number of nodes you can build in a tree of 3 different nodes, and graham's number describes huge numbers of dimensions and vertecies (I'm not a mathematician, I just watch numberphile, so don't believe what I'm saying do the research)
I love how the commas are off and the last 0 is on it's own.
As a cuber I was waiting for you to mention the 43 quintillion scrambles on the Rubik's Cube
Same
Graham’s number in US dollars: you can’t defeat me
The observable universe: I know, but he can
*the US healthcare system
Grahams number in us dollars would actually be much much much bigger than the observable universe
Fr
after this final boss unlocked the real infinite universe
@@dylanmcadam8509 that’s exactly why the universe can’t beat graham number
4:44
That zero placement disappoints me for some reason.
It’s because a googol is 10^100. 100 isn’t a multiple of 3, so a googol comes out to 10 duotrigintillion.
@@mrafabrizi I know that, it’s just that it’s positioned like this: 1,000,0
And not like this: 10,000
It's cause it's wrong the commas go after every 3 numbers from the beginning of the number (at the very right side)
@@JTS1576 Well,
Your a Perfectionist
@@mrafabrizi a googol is far bigger than a duotrigintillion
If Graham’s number is far bigger than all the Planck volume in the known universe, and since a dollar bill is much larger than a Planck volume, then Graham’s number in US dollars would be much, much more massive than what you showed in your thumbnail. Graham’s number dollars is much, much more than filling the whole universe with 100 dollar bills.
Clickbait. Ass video lol
Yeah that's actually what I was thinking about😂😂
Cool that we have the same thoughts!
If you put the amount of atoms in the observable universe as the amount of arrows between something like a googol and a googolplex, you would still be nowhere near graham's number.
@@bryantofsomething5964 wtf🤯🤯
The whole observable universe
Bro explained an entire science and/or a math class in 10 minutes
Googol: You can't defeat me!
Quadrillion: I know, but he can..
Googol Plex: *PERISH, YOU MORTAL*
😂
IMPOSSIBLE ITS NOT A JOJO REFRENCE
Graham's number: You are all powerless before me...!
Me, a vsauser: UNREACHABLE NUMBER
lawl exdee!1
Imagine knowing this when u were a kids . Arguments who is more stupid would have interesting results. Like “ no ur stupid Grahams number times!” “ noooo ur stupid Grahams number plus 1!”
but we knew infinity That was our Ultimate superpower 😂
@@rishi91 That didn't work in my youth. My sister said "I always have 1 more."
Yeah I’m literally a kid I’m about to watch this video at 10 years old
I'm a kid, and seeing this brightens my day, knowing an adult doesn't know what a multillion is, yet I, a 10-yr-old, do... yeet
@@maddoxglassner-u5d who said that a adult doesn't know bout multitrillion
Fun fact : The largest number is how many time your crush ignore you
Jokes on you, I don't have a crush.
@@HangingDGrunt *shows hand*
It just feels that way. The largest number is when your parents are embarrassed to mention you to their friends.
Bruh...😭
that sucks
Fun fact: the possible combinations of well shuffled playing cards in a 52 card deck is 52! ( 52x51x50....x2x1) which is 8x10 to the 67th power..and is greater than the number of atoms on/in the Earth
“10^94 books would weigh more than the Milky Way galaxy.” Umm, I should hope so, since there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire known universe. Did they forget that fact half way through the video? Smh.
Yop, they appearently forgot that tiny piece of information.
black holes ig
Since there is 95% dark matter and energy , so
@@sorry6726 so what? Doesnt change the fact that he stated there are 10^80 atoms in the (known) universe, yet 10^94 books would weigh as much as the whole galaxy. That doesnt add up. Unless you now a way to print a book on 10^-15 atoms
Thanks. I also hate it when YT videos do this.
largest number is how many years my dad has been gone to get milk
Just 15 years right
@@justsomeguywithamask1564
no its graham’s number x itself about grahm’s number times
Not mine
Cringe that joke is overused
@@SpaceIsAwesome035 are you high on serious drugs
“What’s the largest comprehensible number” is a realistic line to say. Or ‘phrase’.
Thought this was going to talk about larger numbers like tree(3), scg(3) and sscg(3)
Yes this video could go on for 10 h there are a video like that!
imagine if 0 was never discovered. Indians must be proud.
What are u trying to say?
@@ray6936 Indians made 0
😀😊
@@helloworld7690 precisely
Here we go. What if division wasn’t discovered? Wouldn’t tribalism exist?
If you manually turned the last wheel All the way around in 1 second, would that then make the first wheel go faster then the speed of light? I know its not possible for it to go faster, and btw.. I feel like it would take an extreme amount of force to spin the last wheel?
The speed of light, or the speed of information is closely related to infinity. You need a literal infinite amount of energy, to bring the machine up to that speed. Witch btw. i guess, only takes around 10 decimals off of 1 Googol seconds; down to 10 to the power of 90 seconds.
What you revering to, is imagined Information. A shadow for example "can" travel over the speed of light, but only because it is the absence of stuff (light casting the shadow). Imagine you casting a shadow on the moon with your hand. That shadow can now move over light speed with a simple hand gesture but your hand and the light around your shadow still cant.
Anything out of mater simply cant do that. The machine would break or you would never have enough juice to reach over lightspeed RPM.
Yeah it would probably take a googolplex of torque to attempt to rotate the last gear, and the gears would probably shatter if you tried lol
How about instead of people saying “The gears would Just break” make stronger gears⚙️? Very simple solution then attach a fucking 9000hp engine to the Gears and spin that bastard as hard as possible it would still probably take a long time but its still faster than doing it yourself 😂🤷♂️ get something graphene for the gears and you’re all set
You're one of those people that breaks the Rubic's cube and puts it back together, right?!
Hmmm good Idea lol
Biggest number is the 60 secs when you do a plank and everyone knows that.
Shit you’re right
Ah, but what if you can only plank for 60 planck times?
Your grammar is astonishing
Fun fact:- If you could fold a paper 103 times, it would be bigger than observable universe...
.. Somewhere between
“ 8 toffees for 1 rupee” and
“1 toffee for 8 rupees”,
we grew up!
Somewhere between
“Ground mai aaja” (Come to the park) and
“Online aaja”, (Come online)
we grew up!
Somewhere between
“stealing chocolate of our sister” and “Buying chocolate for her children”,
we grew up!
Somewhere between
“Just five more mins Maa” and “Pressing the snooze button”,
we grew up!
Somewhere between
“Crying out loud just to get what we want” and
“Holding our tears when we are broken inside”,
we grew up!
Somewhere between
“I want to grow up” and
“I want to be a child again”,
we grew up!
Somewhere between
“Lets meet and plan” and
“Lets plan and meet”,
we grew up!
Somewhere between
"Being afraid of our parents"
and
"Praying for our parents" we finally grew up
And as we grew up, we realize;
How silently, our lives have changed.....
Ahhh,life
🙏
Uh...what?
Dude, that was deep! I literally felt that!
@@scratchpad7954 ruclips.net/video/EGikhmjTSZI/видео.html
Riddddle: "A Billion. Now this is where it gets serious."
My teacher:"What type of serious activities Have you Kids Been doing Today?"
Me:"*A Billion.*"
Teacher: "Wh-"
Me:"*A BILLION!*"
?
funny not detected.
I get it
Stop it, get some help.
@@kateofone everyone got it but it wasn't a funny joke.
2:17 ''its unlikely anyone chould count to a billion,its almost 32 years
me: *counts to a billion in less then 10 seconds*
''you understemate my power''
Same
1,2, imma skip a few, 1,000,000,000
boom that was easy.
ottffssentettffssent
Thats 1 to 20 super fast
Teach me your ways
6:12 non of supermassive black hole have equal mass to galaxies, it doesn't even have 2% of galaxy mass.
Ummmm
There's a black hole named TON 618 and has a mass of 66,000,000,000 suns. The third largest galaxy in our galactic local group (the triangulum galaxy) has a mass of 50,000,000,000 suns. The amount of matter needed to make that black hole is literally more than the amount needed to make a major galaxy.
Me after watching this: “Google... googol... google. What’s google? Why does it sound weird now??
Nooo u did it to me tooo now
Same
Ah yes, semantic satiation. It sucks at the best of times.
He messed up, 1 followed by 100 zeros is googolplex
@@optidanprime8434 then what's a googol?
Can they do a scale of kyriakos grizzly vs the entire universe
He would die because of a black hole
Me: checks account balance......... ah man only $92 quadrillion left in my account, what am I to do with such peasant money 😂
smh i have 48 trillion left in my bank account
Bruh I only have 100 graham 😭😭😭
I only have, like, 170.
Noooooooo i have only 10^Graham number ^googol plex x 10 ^septrillion dollar
lol, i have only 25 sen, this is no joking, what should i do
Graham’s Number isn’t just too big to write on every atom in the universe (a googol is also too big for that), Graham’s Number is too big to write on every Planck distance in the universe. A Planck is the smallest possible measurable distance, about 1.6 x 10^(-35) metres.
If you measured the width of an atom in Planck lengths, counting 1 Planck a second, it would take 1.38 quadrillion years. Graham’s number is way bigger than all of those distances in the observable universe.
Graham’s Number is too big to be written even in the “to the power of” format (e.g. a googol = 10^100).
Graham’s Number is unfathomably colossal, and yet still closer to 0 than to being infinite.
Googol is writable
It’s just 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
And as very, very hard as I try.....I will never be able to even begin to sensibly contemplate how small a Planck length is!! I keep saying to myself.......'There's no way man, that just can't be!!'
It truly is mind boggling^1000!!
Graham's number of G(G(....(G(G(G64))
3^^^^3 is graham's number written out. Number files ( the same people who do 60 symbols) did a video or two on it
The number of digits of Graham's number is also a number too large to fit into the universe
The number of digits in THAT number is ALSO a number too large to fit into the universe
How many times would we need to repeat the process of writing down the number of digits in the previous number before we'd get a number that would fit into the universe?
That number of times is also too large to fit into the universe.
Poor Graham, everyone in his life is probably asking for money
Stephen Kerr Ya
Stephen Kerr I Agree With You
Yeah, good thing he died like three weeks ago.
BrutalBeast666 So Where Did You Hear It
@@whitrenee1 www.ams.org/news?news_id=6244
"The biggest imaginable number is Graham's Number."
Laughs in Rayo's Number
Chuckles in ♾+1
@@wv6309 laughs in ♾️
**Laughs in 100 pigalipontivalogifaribodigrofidojigillion**
(10∞)
remember kids, infinity is not a number, it's a loop
laughs in omega to the power of omega to the power of omega to the power of omega
does that guy know how to write numbers? 6:03
riddddddddddddddle: billion this where we get serious
me: :O
teacher: what is a billion?
me: a place where we get serious
teacher: correct
Expired 💯
Asian af
@@fsjal_scout7944 im not asian
Expired that’s not what I mean but ok
An endless billion times infinity/eternity how much is that number gonna be about &amount to???🐈🐈🐈🦆🦆🤷♀️🤷♀️🤷♀️😻🦆🌞🌞🌞🌞🐧🐧🐧
How about Rayo's number? That number is huge as well!
Yeah... He didn't do complete research.
There's a lot of different large numbers lol Smith's number, Googolplexian, Skewes Number, Tree(3), etc. He made the video 10 minutes long since you can fit a few more ads in a relatively short video.
Yea seriously
YH The Gamer Or BIG FOOT! Does That Count
someone's been watching Numberphileeee
So weird to hear this guy not scream “hey arnold”
Ikr
It blew my mind when my teacher pointed out that there are an infinite numbers between 0 and 1. It was the first time I really grasped how hard it is to grasp the concept of infinity.
Infinity is comfy.
Big but finite numbers are significantly more spooky.
Im gonna start counting to a googol boys, wish me luck🙏
Don't do it. But let the flat earthers count. At least they'll do something useful 😂😂🤣
@@trunzlerclement3227 you couldn't have said it better😂😂😭
@@JDog_Vlogs 😂😂😂
@@trunzlerclement3227 I love that idea LOL! 😀😀😅😅😄😄😃😃
You don't need luck, you need some extra mouth 😋
7:40 it was on daily does of internet also
Graham number; Even if you put the each digit in each Planck volume(smallest measured amount of space) in the universe, still number of Graham digits will be left.
And that why I don't watch that stuff at 2 am
Cuz my brain will be blown
And yet still lilliputian when compared with TREE(3), SSCG(3), Fish 7, Rayo's Number, and Ω and Busy Beaver numbers, the latter two of which rapidly take you into uncomputable numbers.
bruh
@@abdouaboud7490 it would collapse into black hole. Be careful 😁😁
@@davidmahon5269 Yes. This video have missed the real beasts and their comparison
That thumbnail definitely isn't to scale, since even if each dollar was a plank length long it would be larger than the universe lol
6:01
So can you imagine just how big..
**Ad plays**
Old Spice for men.
LMAOOOOO
I'm in mobile :D
How did you know
mine was nft
1:37 "1 THICC book"
Now I felt the importance of zeroes that I used to get in exams....😁😁those were precious !!!!
Lol
I wish they made a mechanism in game like that 😅
yeah for Romper Room!!
Definetly
Nice video, Ridddle! Great job!
ridddle
No it's not
Grahams Number: Exsist Universe: You have so many zeros that I can't fit you in. Grahams Number: Begone, microscopic spec!
You missed one, a mario plex. Or 1.8 x 10 ^ 12431, the number of levels possible to create in super mario maker 1, and created by mat from game theory
I don’t understand how the Universe consist of 10^80 atoms but 10^94 books only weight as much as a Milkyway
Yeah lol wtf 😂
Googol: *exist*
Divided by 0: finnally, a worthy opponient,our battle will be legendary
dividng by 0 just creates infinity/negative infinity
X/0 creates a number greater than infinity. Which is impossible.
If you consider the definition of limits, then 'Lim x-> 0 N/x' it will give you a number much greater than Googol, heck, more than Aleph null
@@MeadowBrook2000 wouldnt it be something like absolute infinity or something?
@@aeryxis956 ?
That dollar comparison is wrong. Graham’s number is significantly larger than the number of Planck volumes in the observable universe.
I read somewhere that theoretical physicists reckon Graham's number will one day be used to measure the size of the multiverse and a method to traverse it.
How many zeros are there in graham number?
@@Incepter. Probably a lot. Graham's Number is an absurd power tower of 3's (3 to the 3 to the 3 to the 3..... for a while). The digits will be seemingly random, so there will be a lot of zeros due to the nature of randomness. There's clever tricks mathematicians use to figure out the last couple hundred digits of Graham's Number, but no one knows the first digit (At least in base 10. In bases 2 and 3 it's a one). No one even knows how many digits you would need to write it down. The only way to understand Graham's Number is the way it's constructed (similar to pi or the square root of 2). Digits are obsolete when it comes to a number so large.
Numberphile made a good video on Graham's Number. It's a little hard to wrap your mind around how to construct it, especially if you're unfamiliar with exponents. All you really need to know is that it's a biggy boi.
@@dannydewario1550 then what’s the point of tryig to count the Graham’s number when nobody has ever known how much digits it has.
@@Incepter. In a sense you're right. There is no point in counting up to Graham's Number. First, it's physically impossible to count that high. Second, even IF you could count that high, you would have a very hard time knowing when you actually hit Graham's Number.
Now being able to count up to a number isn't the only reason to justify its utility. The reason behind the discovery of Graham's Number was in a mathematical proof to set an upper bound to a higher-dimensional problem. I am not the best person to ask what exactly this proof was or how exactly the number was discovered, so I recommend looking up other videos that do better justice to the number over a youtube comment.
Mmm i don’t know, it’s really hard to believe that in the WHOLE observable universe there aren’t enough atoms to reach a googol. How would a group of scientists even estimate that?
Yea i find it crazy too
We know the size of the observable universe universe and it’s approximate average density. From that we know there are about 10^80 particles
@Suvojit Mukherjee It's an estimate but that doesn't mean it isn't also the truth. There is an imprecision (or uncertainty) in the numbers and no scientist would claim otherwise but that doesn't mean they are inaccurate. While we may never be able to know 100%, we can never know anything with certainty, that doesn't stop us from being able to make predictions and take actions based on our knowledge.
I like how he skipped 10^21 😂
Well... The number is... weird.
Yea
Sextilion 😅
***tillion
Hey Ridddle could you do the Halo Announcer Voice ? I really wanna hear your take on it. Hearing you say "double kill", "Killtrocity" and "Flag captured" would be awesomee
KILLER-manjaro
This is perfect
Bro altered carbon is literally one of the best series ive seen
5:10 Mission failed successfully
Me showing this to ant: feel small yet?
true🤣🤣
lol 😂😂🤣
@@gaize1017 sadly he cant talk because its too small for ant
@@gaize1017 but still he cant talk to him which is what i mean
@@gaize1017 i literally said sadly he cant talk because he is too small and he cant find them and theyre microscopic but cant be seen still
The HPD(n) function:
HPD(n) = n^^^^(7^20)
HPD(7) is so large that it would take millions of years to calculate. Imagine HPD(HPD(9000))
HPD stands for HyperProDigious.
The TREE(n) function:
TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(g63)))) Generates a ridiculously large number that cannot be calculated before the sun bursts.
the creators of google can create a whole search engine full of information but can't spell googol lmao
They told a guy to write it, and thag guy wrote it wrong, not them
@ that guy is from their company though
@@KthW but it was not the creator
Fun Fact: There are more combinations in a 52 set deck of cards than there are atoms in our universe.
Edit: I was mistake, Fl05k8r is correct, still has an absurd amount of combinations.
That‘s just wrong.
52! ≈ 8*10^67.
But there‘s 10^78 - 10^82 atoms in the Universe.
See my comment above^ he means the Earth
The highest number is grahams number, but you can say infinity is higher than grahams number
graham number is not the biggest number, search "tree(3)" in youtube
If anyone wants an explanation of Graham’s number:
Imagine 3^3, this means 3^3
3^^3 means 3^3^3
3^^^3 means 3^^3^^3 or 3^3^3^3^3
This is g(1)
Now imagine 3^3 but with g(1) arrows, this is g(2)
3^3 but with g(2) arrows, this is g(3)
Do this again and again until you get to g(64), Graham’s number
Just face it, we’d be long dead by the time that last gear makes one turn
yea no shit
Guy… the universe won’t even exist anymore by the time that thing turns.
Yup!
Couldn’t that machine with the gears be virtually created some how? That would eliminate it “wearing out”
Of course, but you still could not rotate the last gear.
There are much bigger numbers out there than Graham's number... like TREE(3) , right off the top of my head... in fact, there are whole number systems that were created to describe numbers larger than Graham's number with only a few short letters, and according to the googology wiki, Graham's number is only a class 8 large number (Where TREE(3) is class 18)
But if you want something REALLY big, you should look into Loader's number: the largest number a single C program (using a MAXIMUM of only 512 characters) can possibly create
what about rayos number
@@hxuey Rayo's Number is mid-Class 20 level while Loader's Number is very high Class 19. Fast Growing Hierarchy ends at very high Class 19, right before Loader's Number.
Tree(Tree(Tree(Geaham's number))) is what in the classment
I've never heard of this class system for large numbers, anywhere I can read more about it?
@@shehannanayakkara4162 the study of large numbers is called "googology", and the googology wiki is a good place to start
Tree(3) is bigger than graham's number
Yes😊
4:29
Googol's comma placement vexes me
Sextillion: Am I a joke to you?
That’s not the largest tho. That’s one million to the 36 power.
@Kian Saliany googleplex to the power of a googleplex
@Kian Saliany a googolplexian ;)
@Kian Saliany I suppose but not in applied math, cause the theory of omega 1 plus omega 2 ,just keeps going infinite plus infinite . If I remember correctly , havnt seen vsauce in a while lol
Probably skipped for fear of demonetization.
"Googolplex is the biggest number"
Some guy named Graham - "Naah"
*Googol = 1 • 10^100 = 1 • 10¹⁰⁰*
*Centillion = 1 • 10^303 = 1 • 10³⁰³*
*Googolplex = 1 • 10^1000 = 1 • 10¹⁰⁰⁰*
Googolplexian
@tinylilmatt Your right.
Me, an intelectual: Googolplex + 1
Your logo is really sick bro
I feel the number of ads played in this video as the biggest number ever
This dude is awesome, he edits his videos perfectly, and always keeps grinding, keep it up bro
It’s filled with misinformation, it’s also really rushed and really lazy.
Lmao just look at the googol number, the commas are put in the wrong place and that one pesky 0 keeps bugging me.
No one:
Literally no one:
Ridddle: GRAHAMS NUMBER IN US DOLLARS
Lmao
It is unknown the digit count and of course not the number
After you reached reyols number it is rumored to be infinity
I'm a total math nerd and I am totally mesmerized by that machine and really want one! 😀
3:35 whAt? 👀
After watching the video I wonder,
"Do I even matter?"
Same bro
You put the commas in the wrong places for a googol
4:31
What the hell is wrong with that last zero lol
bruh fr
It’s because the full number is wrong