4 ms·
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. The video is mostly about asking which series, TREE or Graham, grows quicker and how we can show it. It
by wodenokoto 7y ago
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
The video is mostly about asking which series, TREE or Graham, grows quicker and how we can show it.
It does this by starting out asking, which is bigger, TREE(G(64)) or G(TREE(64)).
I fail to see how that is comically inefficient or how introducing TREE(TREE(3)) is what they should have done instead.
>Somebody needs to tell them about the fast-growing hierarchy and how Graham's Number lives around \omega+1 while TREE hangs out with the small Veblen ordinal.
Somebody should watch the video before speaking out about what the video should contain.
- chii 7y agothough the video actually didn't say why TREE grows faster than the epsilon function.
- wodenokoto 7y agoThat’s actually a fair point, they don’t explain why TREE grows faster than anything in the f-series. The argument for where in the f-series Graham’s series lies is also a bit hand-wavy.
- chii 7y ago> where in the f-series Graham’s series lies that is actually explained - fω+1(n) is grahams, because of the way grahams defines as iterated versions of up-arrows.
- pas 7y agoIs it even known why?