4 ms·

Pfft, it's much smaller than the number of atoms in the universe. Then again, after I read how to calculate Graham's number, I'm not impressed by much.

by iopq 10y ago

mylons 10y ago
do you mind linking to what you read on Graham's number? The wikipedia is interesting, but it seems like you found something more so
- Amanjeev 10y ago
  I have always enjoyed Numberphile and here is the man himself (Graham) explaining it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo
- Styx- 10y ago
  Not OP, but Wait But Why did a great article on it a few weeks ago: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html
- jsprogrammer 10y ago
  Wildberger recently provided a more systematic approach (though Graham's number is not mentioned explicitly) to hyperoperations in one of his videos [0]. He also discusses some implications of working with numbers so large (including in other videos of the series). [0] https://youtu.be/Wv65xhrJ0zc https://youtu.be/Wv65xhrJ0zc
- ufo 10y ago
  If you like big numbers, this article is a must read: http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
- 112233 10y ago
  you might enjoy reading the analysis of loader.c number here: http://djm.cc/bignum-results.txt http://djm.cc/bignum-results.txt
IanCal 10y ago
TREE(3) is significantly larger, though the explanations as far as I've found them require understanding much more complicated maths than for Graham's number (at least, I can follow the explanation for Graham's number, but not TREE(3)). The fun bit about TREE(3) is that the sequence TREE(1), TREE(2), TREE(3) goes : TREE(1): 1 TREE(2): 3 TREE(3): explosion n(4) is another fun one. n(3) is less than Graham's number, which itself is roughly A^64(4). n(4) is about A^A^(187196)(1) http://everything2.com/title/TREE%25283%2529 http://everything2.com/title/TREE%25283%2529
- iopq 10y ago
  Am I understanding correctly we don't know how large TREE(3) is?
  - nikbackm 10y ago
    I've only ever seen lower bound values given. E.g. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/93828/how-large-is-tree3 http://mathoverflow.net/questions/93828/how-large-is-tree3
pdpi 10y ago
If you've taken the time to figure out Graham's number, take a few minutes to familiarise yourself with the Ackerman function, so that you can grasp the full weight of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/207/ https://xkcd.com/207/

Pfft, it's much smaller than the number of atoms in the universe. Then again, after I read how to calculate Graham's number, I'm not impressed by much.

by iopq 10y ago

Pfft, it's much smaller than the number of atoms in the universe. Then again, after I read how to calculate Graham's number, I'm not impressed by much.

mylons 10y ago

do you mind linking to what you read on Graham's number? The wikipedia is interesting, but it seems like you found something more so

Amanjeev 10y ago
I have always enjoyed Numberphile and here is the man himself (Graham) explaining it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo
Styx- 10y ago
Not OP, but Wait But Why did a great article on it a few weeks ago: http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html
jsprogrammer 10y ago
Wildberger recently provided a more systematic approach (though Graham's number is not mentioned explicitly) to hyperoperations in one of his videos [0]. He also discusses some implications of working with numbers so large (including in other videos of the series). [0] https://youtu.be/Wv65xhrJ0zc https://youtu.be/Wv65xhrJ0zc
ufo 10y ago
If you like big numbers, this article is a must read: http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html http://www.scottaaronson.com/writings/bignumbers.html
112233 10y ago
you might enjoy reading the analysis of loader.c number here: http://djm.cc/bignum-results.txt http://djm.cc/bignum-results.txt

IanCal 10y ago

TREE(3) is significantly larger, though the explanations as far as I've found them require understanding much more complicated maths than for Graham's number (at least, I can follow the explanation for Graham's number, but not TREE(3)). The fun bit about TREE(3) is that the sequence TREE(1), TREE(2), TREE(3) goes : TREE(1): 1 TREE(2): 3 TREE(3): explosion n(4) is another fun one. n(3) is less than Graham's number, which itself is roughly A^64(4). n(4) is about A^A^(187196)(1) http://everything2.com/title/TREE%25283%2529 http://everything2.com/title/TREE%25283%2529

iopq 10y ago
Am I understanding correctly we don't know how large TREE(3) is?
- nikbackm 10y ago
  I've only ever seen lower bound values given. E.g. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/93828/how-large-is-tree3 http://mathoverflow.net/questions/93828/how-large-is-tree3

pdpi 10y ago

If you've taken the time to figure out Graham's number, take a few minutes to familiarise yourself with the Ackerman function, so that you can grasp the full weight of this xkcd: https://xkcd.com/207/ https://xkcd.com/207/