Numbers too big to imagine

  Рет қаралды 2,306,202

Digital Genius

Digital Genius

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 3 200
@digitalgenius111
@digitalgenius111 Жыл бұрын
From 7:26 all the greater-than signs (">") should be pointing in the other direction ("
@Gregory_12
@Gregory_12 Жыл бұрын
🐊
@foreigngodx6
@foreigngodx6 Жыл бұрын
@newlineschannel
@newlineschannel Жыл бұрын
Nice ur a googology fan, been working on many projects for 7 yrs now!
@andidyouknow8208
@andidyouknow8208 Жыл бұрын
Your good im happy when i get a b on my algebra honors two tests
@mhmmyes9620
@mhmmyes9620 Жыл бұрын
💀
@ChessGrandPasta
@ChessGrandPasta Жыл бұрын
it still amazes me to think that if you were to pick a random positive integer the chance that it's bigger than Graham's number tends to 100%.
@no_name4796
@no_name4796 Жыл бұрын
Yeah infinity is just that big lol
@alansmithee419
@alansmithee419 Жыл бұрын
The idea of generating a completely random positive integer seems bizarre to me, because no matter what result you get there should be a 100% chance that the number generated should've been bigger, since there are always infinitely many more integers larger than it but there must be finitely many smaller than it (otherwise you don't have an integer; all integers are finite). If you generate 3 such random numbers, does each have to be bigger than the last? It should be a 100% chance right? What if you look at the third number first, and then look at the second number you generated? There should now be a 100% chance that it is bigger than the third... I don't think the concept itself makes sense.
@cc1drt
@cc1drt Жыл бұрын
to “pick” a random positive integer it needs to first exist. The irony of this is functionally speaking the chance that its bigger than graham’s number is ZERO
@alansmithee419
@alansmithee419 Жыл бұрын
@@cc1drt The probability of an action resulting in a certain outcome being 0 also requires the action to be completable. So really the probability is not 0, but "NA" (Not Applicable - as in the question can't be answered)
@alansmithee419
@alansmithee419 Жыл бұрын
@@randomaccount2448 If it were at all possible, you would be guaranteed to pick an integer, because you only have integers to pick from. You can't pick something that isn't in the set.
@shawnheim5043
@shawnheim5043 10 ай бұрын
Tree 1: 1 Tree 2: 3 Tree 3: Unimaginably huge number beyond the realm of human comprehension
@poucher
@poucher 8 ай бұрын
lmao
@dough9512
@dough9512 8 ай бұрын
What about Tree 2.5: ?
@ckv1985
@ckv1985 8 ай бұрын
​@@dough9512undefined
@zaviyargul
@zaviyargul 7 ай бұрын
41 seconds in got huge numbers
@Gato-y5p
@Gato-y5p 7 ай бұрын
A matemática é incrível 😍
@PixscleArt
@PixscleArt Жыл бұрын
Even though TREE(3) completely dwarfs g63, I love Graham's Number because you can somewhat appreciate just how insanely massive it is when you express it in terms of how many 3s and exponentiation towers exist even just in g(0). In comparison, the tree function is like... "Yeah here's some confusing rules, we go from 1, to 3, to practically-but-not-quite forever"
@poruzu
@poruzu Жыл бұрын
Fax
@Vhite
@Vhite Жыл бұрын
Personally I prefer TREE(3), since it's based on relatively simple rules that are able to bloom into such a big number without touching the infinity.
@alexandertaylor7316
@alexandertaylor7316 Жыл бұрын
​​@@Vhite my issue with TREE(3) is that you can say it's larger than Graham's number, but there isn't really an easy way to show it, so the default answer is "believe me bro".
@user-je3sk8cj6g
@user-je3sk8cj6g Жыл бұрын
@@alexandertaylor7316 Well, THREE(3) is demonstrable, but you basically need a math PhD... So it is indeed "believe me bro" for at least 99.999% of everybody. On another topic, I dare say, mathematicians overthink waaaaay too much...
@yoylecake313
@yoylecake313 Жыл бұрын
@@user-je3sk8cj6g 3(3)
@nidadursunoglu6663
@nidadursunoglu6663 Жыл бұрын
The fact that its easier to imagine infinity than a really big number is insane. Its easy to know infinity goes forever but its almost impossible how big would a pile of 7 tetrated by 7 number of apples
@ryomaanime4563
@ryomaanime4563 Жыл бұрын
because you don't imagine infinity, you imagine something that doesn't end It's close but not the same, it help to understand what it is but you don't imagine it Anyway human brain is bad with big number. And it doesn't have to be this big before the brain goes "yeaaaah something like that maybe, doesn't matter when it's this big" Just imagining a 20km thing is hard as heck. You can try to picture it next to thing that size but it's already to a point where the only thing we could compare to are pictures made from the sky And it's downright impossible to understand how big are the earth, the sun or the solar system. Very small number aren't easier tbh
@pyropulseIXXI
@pyropulseIXXI Жыл бұрын
This makes no sense; infinity is not 'imagining something going on forever.' First off, you cannot imagine that, because all you are doing is imagining something going, then ceasing to imagine that, so you haven't gotten anywhere close to imagining forever, and lastly, infinity is an infinitely large entity, not a 'process that keeps going.' So you are so terrible at imagining infinity that you have fooled yourself into thinking you could more easily imagine infinity than a really large number, which only speaks to the fact that imagining infinity is far harder than imagining any finite number, no matter how large.
@tubegerm6732
@tubegerm6732 Жыл бұрын
​@@pyropulseIXXIfound a pseudointellectual! infinity is definitely easier to imagine than tree(3). infinity is easy, it's infinity, and basic logic that we take for granted stops working there. everyone knows that, simple. but with numbers like tree(3) there isn't anything fundamentally different bewtween them and say, 31. they're both just positive integers. but the scale pf tree(3) is so unimagineably massive, that it becomes easier to think about it as just being "basically infinity" dispite having much more in common with integers that we use every day than with infinity. and that there's the rub. we think of tree(3) as being equivilent to infinity, because that concept is easier to comprehend than tree(3)'s true size.
@minecraftveteran7410
@minecraftveteran7410 Жыл бұрын
Hello there! I think the reason Infinity is easy to understand, is down to the basic understanding we have on the concept of Infinity. We may know it as "never ending", but once you start building up your foundation from there, contradictions start appearing everywhere. But then you realise the exact same thing can be said for TREE(3) or g(64). In conclusion; we might have a better understanding of these large numbers than Infinity. I hope you can see my view, and thanks for reading!
@rsm3t
@rsm3t Жыл бұрын
​​@@pyropulseIXXIinfinity is captured in a single axiom of set theory. Not so for TREE(3). With integers that large, it is extremely rare to find one that can be described as simply as TREE(3). The shortest description of most such numbers tends to be nearly as large as the number of digits required to express the number directly. We can define TREE(3) in far fewer characters only because it has a specific property; most numbers aren't so lucky. Infinity is much easier to conceptualize.
@_Norv
@_Norv 9 ай бұрын
Finally, a good way to measure the ratio of chips to air in a lay’s packet of chips.
@Hitarth-k6t
@Hitarth-k6t 7 ай бұрын
1:Your Mom's Weight
@NeetuSingh-gl1ue
@NeetuSingh-gl1ue 4 ай бұрын
The number of years your dad's gone for milk
@2con_
@2con_ 2 ай бұрын
2:Your weight
@SparerRoom49700
@SparerRoom49700 Ай бұрын
3: the unoriginality of these insults
@jisvngiez
@jisvngiez 15 күн бұрын
4:what am i doing here
@soup9242
@soup9242 Жыл бұрын
I find it funny how TREE(1) is 1, TREE(2) is 3, and TREE(3) is some ungodly huge number.
@aerialace-taken
@aerialace-taken Жыл бұрын
YEAH IKR
@DeetotheDubs
@DeetotheDubs Жыл бұрын
A perfect example of, "Boy, that escalated quickly."
@Jipsy7969
@Jipsy7969 Жыл бұрын
And tree 4 is your weight in tonnes
@dustypaladin9216
@dustypaladin9216 Жыл бұрын
Imagine tree 4
@Noneyettocome
@Noneyettocome Жыл бұрын
I didn't understand that tree number 🧐
@RoyaltyInTraining.
@RoyaltyInTraining. Жыл бұрын
I never thought a number could scare me, but G1 is already so stupidly and mindbogglingly big that it does the trick.
@blackjacktrial
@blackjacktrial Жыл бұрын
What about g3^^^^^^3?
@kunalkashelani585
@kunalkashelani585 Жыл бұрын
And when you figure that any upcoming number is practically so much bigger than the previous one, that it's just ridiculous!
@reshmidas8152
@reshmidas8152 Жыл бұрын
Beware this vid can giv u a numberphobia
@liam.28
@liam.28 Жыл бұрын
look up "busy beaver function"
@Sahl0
@Sahl0 Жыл бұрын
g0 is insane
@KiatHuang
@KiatHuang 11 ай бұрын
The best exposition I've seen so far on large numbers with precise descriptions and excellent graphics. The narrator's voice is perfect for describing mathematics in English. At university I always preferred maths lecturers who did not have English as their mother tongue - less fluff, focus on diction.
@scottrackley4457
@scottrackley4457 2 ай бұрын
Oh yeah. I had an advanced linear algebra teacher from Zimbabwe. He was also the professor I went to when I was having a hard time in advanced diff eq. His diction was perfect but had a Bantu lilt to it. Also his favorite variable will forever be h. He pronounced it "hashe" long A. Dr. Ebiefung was sharp sharp and I learned a lot from that man.
@EnerJetix
@EnerJetix Жыл бұрын
This video felt like a combination of Numberphile’s videos on the topics, but with neat animation as visuals instead. Very well done
@megubin9449
@megubin9449 Жыл бұрын
didnt think id see you here
@EnerJetix
@EnerJetix Жыл бұрын
@@megubin9449 we seem to all be getting recommended the same underrated math channel
@qwertek8413
@qwertek8413 Жыл бұрын
It would be easier to just say it felt like a 3blue1brown video.
@EnerJetix
@EnerJetix Жыл бұрын
@@qwertek8413 yeah, but that wasn’t the first thing I thought of
@RationalFunction
@RationalFunction Жыл бұрын
Why do KZbin views freeze at 301?
@marasmusine
@marasmusine Жыл бұрын
I do like how we can't write down Graham's number even if we inscribed a digit on every particle in the visible universe, but we do know what digits it ends in (last digit is 7).
@sylencemouse1860
@sylencemouse1860 Жыл бұрын
How do we know that
@johnhawkins5314
@johnhawkins5314 Жыл бұрын
​@@sylencemouse1860 well every power of 3 ends in 1, 3, 9 or 7 starting at the zeroth power. So as long as you can show that Graham's number is 3^(4n+3) or 3^(4n-1) then you know it ends in 7 Now I don't understand Graham's Number well enough to show that, but presumably, that is how it would work
@Redditard
@Redditard Жыл бұрын
much appreciated!! @@johnhawkins5314
@ChemEDan
@ChemEDan Жыл бұрын
@@johnhawkins5314 TREE^g63(g63) where the exponent acts like it does in sin^
@WaltonGFilm
@WaltonGFilm Жыл бұрын
​@johnhawkins5314 I have a similar theory. Well stated. Basically, math, patterns, observe and compare said pattern to which "power of 3 digit" each of the earlier phases of G would land on. Then yeh......??
@Aerma
@Aerma Жыл бұрын
I love this video - explains complicated topics extraordinarily simply. Would love a part 2 covering even bigger numbers :)
@Soothsayer_98
@Soothsayer_98 Жыл бұрын
lol says you, at 1:50 my brain turned off and i didn't catch anything past that
@InsaneI
@InsaneI 9 ай бұрын
Geometry Dash reference?!
@LexxGee1234
@LexxGee1234 9 ай бұрын
*what do I expect*
@TheCaregiverSITMOB
@TheCaregiverSITMOB 6 ай бұрын
hi aerma i like your gd lore video
@caspermadlener4191
@caspermadlener4191 Жыл бұрын
The general way to construct enormous numbers like this is: 1. Pick a HUGE ordinal. You have to be able to prove that it is well-ordered, so it can't be infinite, it should be recursive. 2. Make a function based on thay ordinal. Ordinals are complex subjects, but necessary at the "basis" of mathematics (which is not an important part). For every concrete rule to create ordinals, there is a unique ordinal that can't be created with this rule. Graham's function doesn't use that big of an ordinal, since its definition is very straightforwards. The ordinal should even be described by Peano axioms. But the TREE function uses the small Veblen ordinal. That is quite a big ordinal.
@MyOneFiftiethOfADollar
@MyOneFiftiethOfADollar Жыл бұрын
Please do a video over your fascinating comment.
@0x6a09
@0x6a09 Жыл бұрын
doesn't tree use buchholz's ordinal?
@ser_igel
@ser_igel Жыл бұрын
@@0x6a09 i thought it used ackerman's ordinal..
@tabainsiddiquee7611
@tabainsiddiquee7611 Жыл бұрын
@@MyOneFiftiethOfADollar I recommend this series: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gqS0g2WdfbaMi8U Specifically Part 9 goes over the Veblen ordinals
@caspermadlener4191
@caspermadlener4191 Жыл бұрын
@@0x6a09 Wikipedia says that the small Veblen ordinal is used, on both the page about Krustal's tree theorem (the reason why TREE exists as a function) and on the page about the small Veblen ordinal.
@ycajal
@ycajal Жыл бұрын
This is mind-boggling in so many tree levels
@madamada219
@madamada219 Жыл бұрын
I see what you did there😎
@Mountain_2
@Mountain_2 Жыл бұрын
Cant even comprehend level 0
@New-Iron-Official
@New-Iron-Official Жыл бұрын
​@@Mountain_2Gotta be in 4th grade.
@RedGallardo
@RedGallardo Жыл бұрын
That's why I hate it when people so recklessly use infinity as a number to count with. Infinity is way bigger than any of these numbers. Infinitely bigger. In fact, tree(3) n-ated by tree(3) where n=tree(3) would still be infinitely smaller than infinity. Which is why it's pointless. They say "infinity+1 is bigger". I say it's not, infinity already contains infinity+1 and infinity+infinity and infinity power infinity, and tree(infinity). It's not limited with any finite answer so assuming anything may be bigger is just illogical. But it's easy to imagine. A perfect mathematical circle has infinite sides. All possible trees in the palm of your hand.
@-Oddity
@-Oddity Жыл бұрын
​@@RedGallardoThe more you think about, the less infinity seems like a number and more like some incomprehensible eldritch horror from another dimension.
@ashagupta3464
@ashagupta3464 Жыл бұрын
And still, all of them are closer to zero than infinity
@suryanshushekharrollno417c8
@suryanshushekharrollno417c8 7 ай бұрын
Shower thoughts be like:
@PraiseChristTheGod
@PraiseChristTheGod 7 ай бұрын
actually, Infinity is NOT a number you can be either closer or further away from. Infinity is a concept for something that doesn't HAS NO END. something without limit. The real numbers are infinite, because they never end.
@Elfcheg
@Elfcheg 7 ай бұрын
@@PraiseChristTheGodtrue but they are the smallest infinity. And there are infifnities much bigger.
@twt2718
@twt2718 6 ай бұрын
⁠​⁠@@PraiseChristTheGod By definition, every number is closer to zero than infinity. In the universe of the pure mathematics (like Platonism), (♾️ᐨ) through (♾️ᐩ) are necessary for almost every branch of maths. **I didn’t know Platonism was a word until I read the definition of Platonic😂
@UchralAltanOvoo
@UchralAltanOvoo 6 ай бұрын
​@@PraiseChristTheGodYes infinity is minus maximum to positive maximum
@livingthemcdream
@livingthemcdream Жыл бұрын
Just so you know, you just explained exponentiation better than literally every teacher I have had up until now in less than 30 seconds
@theguywhoisadev
@theguywhoisadev 5 ай бұрын
I'm 9 and my IQ just bumped up to 217 what the h-
@Thequietkid888
@Thequietkid888 4 ай бұрын
@@theguywhoisadevmy sister is 8 and she can’t read or write , all she do is waste time on TikTok and be edgy 💀
@anaboth9536
@anaboth9536 3 ай бұрын
@@theguywhoisadevmy sister learned exponentiation when she was 4
@ArcaneTricksterRS
@ArcaneTricksterRS 3 ай бұрын
I mean, how hard can it be to understand what exponentials are lol
@Thequietkid888
@Thequietkid888 3 ай бұрын
@@ArcaneTricksterRS it isn’t hard but the video explains it with its roots, yk
@mike1024.
@mike1024. Жыл бұрын
I get that the TREE concept is a bit hard to describe, but I feel like some semblance of how we know it is finite yet much larger than Graham's number would have been appreciated.
@Z3nt4
@Z3nt4 Жыл бұрын
The problem with trying to explain it is that the explanation itself requires a much deeper understanding of mathematics than it seems. I'll go on a -slightly- pedantic rant and then try a metaphor to explain it anyway, and apologies if at some point this comes across as condescending. It's not, I'm just trying to _really_ make it as simple as possible. Apologies also to whoever this oversimplification might offend. To most people, mathematics is just another science subject out there, but the reality is that it goes so deep and is so vast as to, in my opinion, be larger than all the other subjects (physics, chemistry, engineering...) combined. The mathematics taught at highschool level feels comparable to learning to say Ni hao, which is "hello" in Mandarin and Cantonese, and calling that being fluent in all the Chinese dialects. A lot of the proofs out there, even for things that seem like they should be "easy" to talk about, require a completely different dialect of mathematics to talk about. You need to peel it back to the abstract logic and go from there. An example of one such dialect (first order logic) would be the following sentence: ∀x ∀y ∀z x ≤ y∧y ≤ z → x ≤ z (for every X, every Y, every Z such that X is smaller than Y and Y is smaller than Z, it follows that X must be smaller than Z). It expands the concrete analysis of, say, an equation, to an abstract observation about variables without worrying about what those variables actually are. For this specific problem of the TREE function, we need to take another step back into second order arithmetic, which is used to further expand and talk about some properties and relations between mathematical objects. For instance, the sentence ∀P ∀x ( Px ∨ ¬Px ) would fall under this category (for every formula P and every variable X, either that formula with that variable is true, or _not_ that formula with that variable is true). It is within this dialect of mathematics speaking about properties of objects that we can construct a proof both that the TREE function is finite for any finite values passed to it and that TREE(3) is much, much larger than Graham's number. Rant and semi-formal explanation over, I'll put it in software terms, which bears striking resemblance to mathematics on many levels but is much easier to grasp: Picture a random mechanic in a random videogame that you can toy around with, familiarize yourself with and learn to use (can be something as simple as jumping). But to know _how_ and _why_ it works the way it does beyond "press this button and it jumps", you need to learn the programming language it's coded in, and go dive into the code. And then you might realize that just from the code you don't fully grasp how it does what it does, and you need to actually _learn how the programming language itself is built_ and go almost all the way down to how the machine functions at a physical level in order to know how the actual code works, and only then fully understand the mechanic. TREE(3) is one of these mechanics, it's concept is very simple, but to actually know how and why it works the way it does you need not only to look at the code, but know how the programming language it's coded in works itself. Those would be first and second order arithmetic, whilst playing the game is just regular math.
@mike1024.
@mike1024. Жыл бұрын
@@Z3nt4 hmm fair enough. I'm confident I can understand a real explanation, but if it would be exceptionally long winded and too hard for most, that might explain why he didn't put it in. I can read your statement of the transitive property by the way. :-) do you know of a video or paper that explains it properly?
@Z3nt4
@Z3nt4 Жыл бұрын
@@mike1024. A proper explanation (which I'm not privy to) requires some deeper undestanding of graph theory, in which I am no expert and don't necessarily know of any readily available resources on the topic. However, if you're set on going down the rabbithole I guess you could start by looking up Kruskal's tree theorem and working your way back from there (which is NOT trivial by any means). The massive TL;DR is that under graph theory you can prove that any tree (the mathematical object 'tree') of the same type as the ones built through the TREE function must be finite. How one would go about proving that in the first place is beyond me, but that's the tool for the job.
@mike1024.
@mike1024. Жыл бұрын
@@Z3nt4 I'll play around with it! I've taken a couple of graph theory classes and seen some tree based proofs. Thank you.
@cindyegweh7559
@cindyegweh7559 10 ай бұрын
Here's a way to put it in scale, brak an atom in half and get a hydrogen quark, an unbelievably small substance, fill the entire observable universe with those quarks and were about 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of grahams number, lets shrink this quark filled universe to the size of a quark, then fill the universe up with it, repeat this roughly a million times and chances are, your number is still smaller the tree(3) by ALOT, when i say alot, I mean you can divide tree(3) by the amount of atoms in this universe and itll still be higher than the extremely densely packed universe This probably didn't help
@aprilbrandon3441
@aprilbrandon3441 9 ай бұрын
I feel like I don’t know anything now
@samjohnston1887
@samjohnston1887 Жыл бұрын
Took a test one year that had a question about a card game and it asked about the number of possibilities. My answer ended up being 2 tetrated up 100 times. I’d never seen tetration before but I was super proud of finding the answer.
@deltaspace0
@deltaspace0 Жыл бұрын
What is the card game that has that humongous amount of possibilities?
@kunalkashelani585
@kunalkashelani585 Жыл бұрын
Please share the question
@mike1024.
@mike1024. Жыл бұрын
Thirded, would love to see the question!
@anonymouspersonthefake
@anonymouspersonthefake Жыл бұрын
fourthed
@azurezzz
@azurezzz Жыл бұрын
graham's numbered
@galacticdiamondz6425
@galacticdiamondz6425 Жыл бұрын
7:41 You need to swap the > signs for < signs.
@carlosmirandarocha8905
@carlosmirandarocha8905 Жыл бұрын
Yes lol, I was wondering about this too
@Szy96335
@Szy96335 Жыл бұрын
The pinned comment already says about that
@aiyazashraf
@aiyazashraf Жыл бұрын
Exactly
@DutchFurnace
@DutchFurnace 9 ай бұрын
The Toddler's Theorem is the biggest number ever. "Your number, +1!"
@Th3nox13
@Th3nox13 2 ай бұрын
Thats just the truth. TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(3)))) < TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(3))))+1. Toddlers are clever apparently😅
@Cguyvan
@Cguyvan Жыл бұрын
People like you are able to make math more interesting 👍
@NevertahnProduction
@NevertahnProduction Жыл бұрын
if you understand math in the first place, that is
@solanaceous
@solanaceous Жыл бұрын
This video is severly underated
@greenlll121
@greenlll121 Жыл бұрын
​@@solanaceousnuh uh not the video only the guy who made it is also underrated
@steffenbendel6031
@steffenbendel6031 Жыл бұрын
but only finitely more interesting. Maybe around the factor TREE(TREE(3))
@pyropulseIXXI
@pyropulseIXXI Жыл бұрын
math is more interesting on its own; what you just admitted is that you are not interesting and need someone else to program your mind with ideas that are interesting on their own. This guy is not making math more interesting; he is literally just talking about the math, and the math is interesting on its own. I am amazed at people such as yourself
@moonbeamskies3346
@moonbeamskies3346 Жыл бұрын
I can personally attest to the fact that tree(3) is a large number because I stayed up all night with pens and paper testing it by drawing trees and I never came to the end. I had well over 400 trees drawn in that time and didn't seem to be near the end of possible trees. I fell asleep and dreamed of trees combinations.😮
@pedrocoelho5562
@pedrocoelho5562 Жыл бұрын
a true scientific mind! Don't take things for granted, proof is required :)
@melonneleh777
@melonneleh777 Жыл бұрын
Wow! I really respect the dedication 🫡
@edgepixel8467
@edgepixel8467 9 ай бұрын
Nice. Keep going.
@thesenate1844
@thesenate1844 8 ай бұрын
I still don't quite understand the rules on how TREE works. What does "not embedded in previous tree" mean exactly?
@ckv1985
@ckv1985 8 ай бұрын
​​@@thesenate1844you cannot steal the tree
@ArtyArdo
@ArtyArdo 3 ай бұрын
0:00 Succesion (adding 1 to a number) 0:07 Addition (repetition of Succesion) 0:14 Multiplication (repetition of Addition) 0:23 Exponentiation (repetition of Multiplication) 0:34 Tetration (repetition of Exponentiation) 2:37 Pentation (repetition of Tetration) 3:16 Hexation (repetition of Pentation) 3:37 Starting to create Graham’s Number 4:16 Graham’s Number 4:53 Explanation of TREE(3) 6:35 TREE(3)
@hellowow4631
@hellowow4631 Жыл бұрын
I don't think that we would even have colours for the seeds remaining for TREE(TREE(3))
@JustAHuman-gb5go
@JustAHuman-gb5go Жыл бұрын
TREE(TREE(TREE(3))
@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj
@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj Жыл бұрын
After TREE(3,600,000), We would run out of humanly distinguishable colors. After TREE(16,777,000), We would run out of RGB 32-bit colors.
@kepler_22b83
@kepler_22b83 Жыл бұрын
The limited resources of this universe can not accomodate a representation of this number... But, although colors in the visible spectrum are finite, there may be no ceiling to how much energy a photon can pack... Neither a lower limit on how low the photon's frequency is possible. So, whether we'll run out of colors is questionable, we would run out of energy faster. P.S: if you want to destroy the universe, task an AI singularity with calculating every TREE(TREE(3)) tree. Tell it not to stop until it got the answer.
@bicksinormus
@bicksinormus Жыл бұрын
@@MatthewConnellan-xc3ojSSCG(3.6m) perhaps?
@paolarei4418
@paolarei4418 Жыл бұрын
​@@MatthewConnellan-xc3ojAfter TREE(TREE(TREE(....... we would run out of TREES cause we used too much paper to write them on papers
@ionic7777
@ionic7777 Жыл бұрын
I like your explaination of the TREE function, much more easy to understand on a basic level!
@danielxdvioletaxd
@danielxdvioletaxd Жыл бұрын
nice BTC pfp
@mohankrishna2442
@mohankrishna2442 Жыл бұрын
Less than a minute into the video and things got out of hand!! Amazing video and explanation.
@niviera7807
@niviera7807 Жыл бұрын
I opened KZbin to listen to some music and here i am watching a man teaching me math
@elchile336
@elchile336 6 ай бұрын
doin' both things here bruh
@dante7228
@dante7228 Жыл бұрын
Wrong video at 5 o'clock after waking up. It just obliterated my brain...
@GeometriDazhPlayz777
@GeometriDazhPlayz777 10 ай бұрын
7:48 Even though it is incredibly massive, It doesn't come close to SSCG(3), SSCG(4), SSCG(5), and SSCG(SSCG(3)).
@acechesterfernandez4770
@acechesterfernandez4770 3 ай бұрын
BB(19) Or even rayos number towers over those numbers
@St2ele
@St2ele Жыл бұрын
Thank you for taking these concepts and editing a video with visual proof with examples for all of them. This is some of the best work I've seen! Keep it up!
@charredUtensil
@charredUtensil Жыл бұрын
There was a great thread on the XKCD fora back around 2010 where a bunch of nerds tried to outcompete each other for largest number without just incrementing previous numbers. The forums are gone now but I think TREE showed up by the third page and by the fifth someone had a number that exceeded the "largest number" yet discovered. I wasn't able to follow along at the time but this definitely helps. Now if only I could find that thread and try to understand some of the larger numbers...
@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj
@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj Жыл бұрын
E:NN(x) is x^^^^^…x with x+1 up arrows. I just thought of it.
@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj
@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj Жыл бұрын
And then you can just go on with E:NN(E:NN(E:NN(E:NN… to insane lengths.
@charredUtensil
@charredUtensil Жыл бұрын
Yeah I think the largest numbers used some technique where they turned infinite numbers into mind bogglingly big non-infinite numbers somehow
@kiwi_2_official
@kiwi_2_official Жыл бұрын
@@MatthewConnellan-xc3oj E:NN(x) = x^...x+1...x E:NM(x) = E:NN(E:NN...x)))...) with x nestations of the E:NN function onto x E:NM2(x,y) = same nestation on E:NM, with y nestations.
@Lexivor
@Lexivor Жыл бұрын
I remember that thread from XKCD, it was an epic thread with hundreds of posts. After studying the math for quite a while I was able to understand most of it. That thread got me deeply into large numbers for a couple of years. I made about fifty pages of notes on large numbers, including a couple dozen of the numbers listed on that thread.
@rahumor7556
@rahumor7556 10 ай бұрын
So I like incremental idle games, they give big numbers and oftentimes feel trivial when you look at the next milestone. That is what Tree(tree(g63)) feels like. Its what silliness do I have to accomplish to reach that number. Love the video keep up the good work.
@Orestekoa
@Orestekoa Жыл бұрын
The highest one actually is called penetration but I doubt any mathematician's ever experienced it or used it
@handtomouth4690
@handtomouth4690 Жыл бұрын
Damn
@mellborry
@mellborry Жыл бұрын
Good one
@jakeb_playz7079
@jakeb_playz7079 Жыл бұрын
How does "penetration" work?
@JonCombo
@JonCombo Жыл бұрын
All log, no pi.
@coverscrowes4560
@coverscrowes4560 Жыл бұрын
​@@JonCombolmao
@tabularasa_br
@tabularasa_br Жыл бұрын
Inifity always seemed magical to me. When I was a little child, I used to cry when trying to conceptualize the fact that the Universe (might) be infinite, or the sheer fact that there is not a "final number", and that things can always be bigger. I was overwhelmed by this as if I were an old archeologist beholding a non-euclidean Eldritch abomination from a parallel dimension in a Lovecraftian tome. As of today, mathematics is one of my favorite subjects, even though I was terrible at it at school. Finding this channel was like finding a precious gem!
@PanthereaLeonis
@PanthereaLeonis Жыл бұрын
I had come to terms with infinity, that there is no end. I had not come to terms with how insanely large finity could be!!
@gazabo-gam463
@gazabo-gam463 Жыл бұрын
When I was little I also thought things like that, about how we are the only thing that exists. There is nothing after death there is no way to escape since this is the only thing of the only thing. I was a weird 8 year old kid.
@apollyon1
@apollyon1 Жыл бұрын
same. I think there should be maths appreciation at school where we get taught cool shit about what maths can do but don't actually have to do any sums. like I can appreciate sports without having to jog you know!?
@newsgo1876
@newsgo1876 10 ай бұрын
This is the first time I heard about the operation of level >=4. Thank you for enlightening me.
@QuentinStephens
@QuentinStephens Жыл бұрын
There's one thing I don't understand about tetration: the exponents do not follow the power of a power law (a^m^n = a^mn). At 1:03 we have 3 tetrated to the 4th which is equated to 3^3^3^3, but by the power of a power law that latter value is equal to 3^(3*3*3)
@TheSpotify95
@TheSpotify95 Жыл бұрын
That's because doing something like (a^m^n) using the power law means you're just bundling it into a single exponentiation term. With tetration of a number, you have to start at the top of the tower and work your way down - that's how the larger numbers are built as you're defining a new concept/sequence. So 3^3^3^3 = 3^(3^(3^3)), noting the brackets to determine order. This then works out to be 3^(3^27), or 3^(7.62x10^12), or three to the power of 7.62 trillion.
@QuentinStephens
@QuentinStephens Жыл бұрын
@@TheSpotify95 Thanks.
@EdithKFrost
@EdithKFrost Жыл бұрын
Math teacher: Please find the next term of the sequence: 1,3,… People who know the game of trees: 😢
@__________________________hi52
@__________________________hi52 4 ай бұрын
844,424,930,131,960?
@TicTacSoda2341
@TicTacSoda2341 4 ай бұрын
@@__________________________hi52you know that’s fathomable
@__________________________hi52
@__________________________hi52 4 ай бұрын
@@EdithKFrost nah its, uh, i think i forgot.
@Tysm_for_1k_subs
@Tysm_for_1k_subs 3 ай бұрын
​@@__________________________hi52 this is more than G(G(G(G(G(G(Graham's number))))))
@eastonrocket兀
@eastonrocket兀 3 ай бұрын
@@__________________________hi52WEAK TREE FUNCTION I THINK
@ColinAnimate
@ColinAnimate 7 ай бұрын
0:02 So, would subtracting 1 be called "Failure"?
@samgames4417
@samgames4417 7 ай бұрын
Lol. Fr tho, it’s predecessor
@LaTinkaLoterias179
@LaTinkaLoterias179 4 ай бұрын
​@@samgames4417PREDESCECION
@LaTinkaLoterias179
@LaTinkaLoterias179 4 ай бұрын
​@@samgames4417PREDECESSION
@dimitrinotfound
@dimitrinotfound Жыл бұрын
The fact that the number of real numbers between 0 and 1 is way laaaarger than any of the numbers discussed here is creepy
@JordanMetroidManiac
@JordanMetroidManiac Жыл бұрын
Seems like you found a good way to imagine infinity, if it’s giving you the creeps.
@pyropulseIXXI
@pyropulseIXXI Жыл бұрын
how stupid; there is no finite amount of real numbers between 0 and 1, so this is utterly obvious and not creepy at all
@zbz5505
@zbz5505 Жыл бұрын
​@@pyropulseIXXI< I have to be an asshole on the Internet for no reason whatsoever.
@Nivleknosnhoj
@Nivleknosnhoj Жыл бұрын
Good thing that maths is a close imitation but fundamentally an imitation of reality irrespective of it's unreasonable utility in bits and bobs and things that make you go hmmmm. 😊
@Nivleknosnhoj
@Nivleknosnhoj Жыл бұрын
But maybe yeah I'm more than likely wrong maybe maths is the only thing that's real and it's reality that's the charade
@bergnerm
@bergnerm Жыл бұрын
This is a good video, but one problem I have is that whenever anyone is explaining how big TREE(3) is, they explain the rules of how it's generated, but they never say how they know it's so huge. It basically boils down to "trust us... it's REALLY big". How do they know it's bigger than Graham's Number? What kind of mathematics do you use to show this--obviously not "trust me"!
@ãstralphoenix69
@ãstralphoenix69 Жыл бұрын
i think the same
@yxx_chris_xxy
@yxx_chris_xxy 10 ай бұрын
The finiteness follows from Kruskal's tree theorem. It's not something that can be explained in a youtube comments section.
@bergnerm
@bergnerm 10 ай бұрын
@@yxx_chris_xxy I figured it was something quite complex, but all of the youtube videos I see on it have dumbed it down too much. Maybe you could do a video at least explaining Kruskail's tree theorem, in simplified terms, and at least allude to the techniques used to compare two gargantuan numbers like g(64) and TREE(3).
@user-ct8rh2re4d
@user-ct8rh2re4d 7 ай бұрын
Graham's Number is G64 not G63. G1 is 3^^^^3 not G0.
@vibecheck663
@vibecheck663 Жыл бұрын
Love the LEMMiNO music
@The_NSeven
@The_NSeven Жыл бұрын
Great video, one of the best I've seen this week! Love big numbers
@rickb_NYC
@rickb_NYC Жыл бұрын
I'd love more treatment of the tree function. I don't quite understand how it can get so big. Maybe going further with many examples of how it can grow. Also, is there an equation for it? (I assume there is, and bet it has factorials.)
@samcertified7178
@samcertified7178 Жыл бұрын
x! grows slower than x^x which doesn't even come close to tetration. The levels of recursion required to represent a number as large as Graham's number (let alone TREE(3)) go well beyond factorial.
@Danpg79
@Danpg79 Жыл бұрын
​@@samcertified7178and (x!)! Grows unfathomably fast... 1!! = 1! = 1 2!!, same thing 3!! Though... 3!! =6! 6! = 720
@ami_gourav
@ami_gourav Жыл бұрын
Factorial world be great great great great grandkid when compared to those Pappas
@gareth2736
@gareth2736 Жыл бұрын
I struggle to get my head both around that and also hoe if tree 3 is so big tree 4 or tree 1000 are still finite.
@pi_man3
@pi_man3 Жыл бұрын
@@gareth2736eventually you will run out of trees because of previous trees
@RealGhostface-y9b
@RealGhostface-y9b 8 ай бұрын
Finally...a way to mesure nikocado avocado's weight
@weeblordgaming6062
@weeblordgaming6062 Жыл бұрын
When u have completed 3 semesters of calculus but are still very scared right now
@gravysamich
@gravysamich Жыл бұрын
i gotta be honest... i finished your video and thought, "thats it?" i will give you credit, you are the first person to explain arrow notation that actually made sense to me. i just felt like all your video was is just saying, "hey there are some big numbers!" maybe next time explain the numbers significance a little better. grahams number in particular is very interesting because it relates to describing higher dimensional objects.
@AyarPortugal
@AyarPortugal 11 ай бұрын
Crazy stuff, thank you so much for sharing, very insightful and interesting.
@Amphy2k
@Amphy2k Жыл бұрын
One of these days I pray to see someone finally explain Large Number Garden Number. It’s the current largest number and no matter how much I read about it, I still feel like I don’t understand it fully.
@big_numbers
@big_numbers Жыл бұрын
It’s best to think of uncomputable numbers as diagonalizing over the process of creating functions itself.
@megubin9449
@megubin9449 Жыл бұрын
its not exactly the largest number, but it is the largest well-defined number.
@ieatcarsyum8248
@ieatcarsyum8248 Жыл бұрын
I just made a larger number: Large Number Garden Number + 1
@TomFoster-en5uc
@TomFoster-en5uc Жыл бұрын
@@ieatcarsyum8248hahaha large garden number+2
@TheUnovanZorua
@TheUnovanZorua Жыл бұрын
What's that? I don't study complex math, so I've never heard of it.
@alexandremenino2006
@alexandremenino2006 Жыл бұрын
anime vilains explaining how much times stronger they are from the protagonist
@7stain
@7stain 18 күн бұрын
Before this I just watched a video about tetration. This completely blows my mind
@madladam
@madladam Жыл бұрын
I've been asking this question for a year. Love the style and narration. Instant Sub
@pyropulseIXXI
@pyropulseIXXI Жыл бұрын
it took you a year to not learn, yet keep asking, a question that a literal 6 year old could figure out on their own in less than 12 seconds
@madladam
@madladam Жыл бұрын
@@pyropulseIXXI I discovered power towers on my own, essentially tetration and I learned of Graham's number, but didn't understand it. I never knew it was actually called tetration until now, nor the official notation. But you sir, have had a difficult day, to be sure. I am deeply sorry for any stress in your life, and I want you to know that there are so many people who love you; and they still love you, even if you write snarky comments on KZbin.
@jezze419
@jezze419 Жыл бұрын
Small critique, at the end you use the greater-than symbol > wrong which can lead to confusion
@digitalgenius111
@digitalgenius111 Жыл бұрын
Yes, they should be ">". Sorry for the mistake.
@ChrisMMaster0
@ChrisMMaster0 Жыл бұрын
@@digitalgenius111 you did it again XD
@FailedAtNNN
@FailedAtNNN Жыл бұрын
@@digitalgenius111
@redgrengrumbholdt2671
@redgrengrumbholdt2671 Жыл бұрын
​@@ChrisMMaster0Chat-GPT be like
@tinotino8349
@tinotino8349 Жыл бұрын
I cant wait for the octation update!
@tejasbansal
@tejasbansal 2 күн бұрын
Me too
@IAmNumber4000
@IAmNumber4000 Жыл бұрын
It’s fascinating that these numbers are so big that computation with them is impossible, since even ^4 3 is greater than the number of Planck volumes in the observable universe.
@angularpy
@angularpy Жыл бұрын
Wow, this was a super clear explanation. Thanks for sharing this knowledge! 🧠💡
@Agnoobo
@Agnoobo 3 ай бұрын
Exponentiation = 3^3 = 27 Tetration = 3^^3 = 7.6 trillion Pentation = 3^^^3 = 3^^7.6 trillion = 3^3^3^3… 7.6 trillion times!
@Seyleine_
@Seyleine_ 11 ай бұрын
This is so interesting, thinking that such big no.s could exist is mind boggling.also I was super excited to hear cipher here 😅.
@Farfocele
@Farfocele Жыл бұрын
This video blew up - and for good reason! This explains giant numbers very well. Thanks for the video!
@briangronberg6507
@briangronberg6507 Жыл бұрын
I don’t understand the visual illustrations for TREE(3) at 6:53. Any of the two blue seeds in the 4th example have a green seed as a common ancestor but in the 3rd example two blue seeds have a green seed as a common ancestor. In the 5th example two blue seeds are connected, but we see not one, but two cases where two blue seeds are connected in the 4th example. In the 6th example there are three blue seeds linked together in the same way as we see in the 4th example and the blue-blue-green-blue pattern on the right is exactly the same as the right pattern in the 5th example. What is it that I’m missing?
@joshuagetusername4779
@joshuagetusername4779 Жыл бұрын
There's two things: First off, an entire tree must be contained. Having a part of a previous tree contained is not the issue so just because one tree contains two connected blue seeds doesn't mean any future tree can't contain two connected blue seeds. Second, it is about the NEAREST common ancestor. Yes any pair of blue seeds in the fourth example have a green seed as an ancestor. But that wouldn't be the nearest one, instead it would be the lower one of the two blue seeds themself as that one is already an ancestor to the other one. This might be a bit hard to put into text form for a YT comment and for a relatively short video it would of course be difficult to go into a lot of detail on this. Though if you want Numberphile went into some more detail during their video on Tree(3).
@markosskace514
@markosskace514 9 ай бұрын
Nicely explained tetration and higher operations. I always get confused thinking about them.
@Jonasz314
@Jonasz314 Жыл бұрын
Minor nit - on the last slide, the Greater signs you use are inverted, you mean to say that Tree(3) is greater than g(1000) but it shows g(1000) > Tree(3), and than tree(3) > tree(4). I think it's clear when you listen to the audio, but someone watching it with no audio will be very confused.
@Weird_Jae
@Weird_Jae Жыл бұрын
Mind got blown again, just realized these operations can probably be done inversely. So then, Super-roots and Super-logarithm would exist.
@BoredOutOfMyMIND2763
@BoredOutOfMyMIND2763 8 ай бұрын
My friends describing when I’ll get a girlfriend:
@mathisr.v3627
@mathisr.v3627 Жыл бұрын
Your video is awesome ! It’s very well done in the details !
@paolarei4418
@paolarei4418 Жыл бұрын
Why im seeing ya in all vids now LOL
@yeochxd
@yeochxd Жыл бұрын
hi mathis, found ya
@omarie5893
@omarie5893 7 ай бұрын
Mathis! Of course we can keep on going after omegafinruom right?
@dreamstage寧々
@dreamstage寧々 6 ай бұрын
Yo fictional gogology
@gosnooky
@gosnooky Жыл бұрын
Mind blowing when you consider that it's not possible to even store such a number physically, even if each digit only took up a single Planck unit of space.
@generichuman_
@generichuman_ Жыл бұрын
It's really difficult to get an intuition for how big TREE(3) is if you only have Knuth up arrow notation in your tool box. In the fast growing hierarchy, grahams number is on the order of f_omega+1, and if we continue to build larger ordinals to stick into the fast growing hierarchy, we exhaust omega by reaching an infinite tower of omegas which is epsilon naught, an infinite tower of that is epsilon 1, we can continue this and have other ordinals in the subscript of epsilon like epsilon sub omega, or epsilon sub epsilon naught, or even an infinite nesting of epsilons which is zeta naught. We can continue with an infinite nesting of zetas which is eta naught, and to avoid exhausting the greek alphabet we can move on to veblen notation in which epsilon naught is phi 1, zeta naught is phi 2 etc. We can create veblen functions with other ordinals as the argument like phi sub omega, and we can even have infinite nestings of veblen functions which is gamma naught, it then moves on to extended veblen notation which is messy so I switch to using infinite collapsing functions. Infinite collapsing functions define a very large ordinal that "collapses" to a well defined one when put into a function. We have a set that contains {0,1,omega, Omega} where Omega is our large ordinal. We define an ordinal that is the smallest ordinal that can't be constructed using this set using addition, multiplication and exponentiation, which turns out to be an infinite tower of omegas which is epsilon naught. This is Phi(0). We then add epsilon naught to the set and ask what the next ordinal is that can't be created using the set which is epsilon one, so Phi(1) = epsilon one. This continues on, but the function gets stuck at an infinite nesting of epsilons. To bail us out, we can plug Omega into the function and get zeta naught. We continue in this way bailing out the function with constructions of Omega when it gets stuck to reach larger and larger ordinals. Psi(Omega) = zeta naught, Psi(Omega^2) = Eta naught, Psi(Omega^x) = Phi sub x, Psi(Omega^Omega) = Gamma naught, and Psi(Omega^Omega^omega) which is the small veblen ordinal, is roughly on the scale of TREE(3). If you want an in depth deconstruction of this, it's on my channel, just search Giroux Studios.
@kishorejuki5450
@kishorejuki5450 Жыл бұрын
Dang bro
@xxUrek
@xxUrek Жыл бұрын
ah, yes, i know some of those words.
@handtomouth4690
@handtomouth4690 Жыл бұрын
Sir, this is a youtube comment section.
@gpt-jcommentbot4759
@gpt-jcommentbot4759 Жыл бұрын
People on the internet are not going to understand bro don't bother explaining FGH to them.
@seejoshrun1761
@seejoshrun1761 Жыл бұрын
You know all that, but you don't know how to use paragraphs
@AlphaPizzadog
@AlphaPizzadog Жыл бұрын
Now what is the inverted function. Addition has subtraction, multiplication has division, exponents have square root (for x^2) and logarithms (for 2^x), what does tetration and above have?
@big_numbers
@big_numbers Жыл бұрын
Super root and super logarithm
@Luigicat11
@Luigicat11 Жыл бұрын
@@big_numbers What comes next after those? Super super root/logarithm? Ultra root/logarithm?
@huseynmmmdov9593
@huseynmmmdov9593 Жыл бұрын
Loved and subscribed!
@p20104
@p20104 Жыл бұрын
7:26 are the inequality signs backwards?
@digitalgenius111
@digitalgenius111 Жыл бұрын
Yes they are, they should be ">". Sorry for the mistake.
@p20104
@p20104 Жыл бұрын
All good love the video
@ze_kangz932
@ze_kangz932 Жыл бұрын
​@@digitalgenius111You did the mistake again lol
@nathankoziol7368
@nathankoziol7368 Жыл бұрын
@@digitalgenius111
@janbacer
@janbacer Жыл бұрын
​@@ze_kangz932😂
@TaranVaranYT
@TaranVaranYT Жыл бұрын
This is how I learned about hyperoperations. My symbols that I use are right isosceles triangles that split down from the 90° angle right in between each. My symbol for Succession is an outline circle.
@pyropulseIXXI
@pyropulseIXXI Жыл бұрын
such inefficient notation
@TaranVaranYT
@TaranVaranYT Жыл бұрын
@@pyropulseIXXI I know
@bijipeter1471
@bijipeter1471 9 ай бұрын
Thank you, so much
@Kormit537
@Kormit537 Жыл бұрын
Then there's penatration
@Raj10896
@Raj10896 8 ай бұрын
I wonder how big it could be or such just end at 6 inchs
@redmelons
@redmelons 8 ай бұрын
Hexation Hexation Octation​@@Raj10896
@unnamedscribble-auttp
@unnamedscribble-auttp 8 ай бұрын
underrated comment
@eclipseshetheyneos588
@eclipseshetheyneos588 7 ай бұрын
Mathmatitions don't know about that one
@dheerajmalik6989
@dheerajmalik6989 7 ай бұрын
after that, there is migration
@mrsillytacos
@mrsillytacos Жыл бұрын
4:18 it goes to g64, not g63...
@itzashham797
@itzashham797 Жыл бұрын
Since he started it off with 3↑↑↑↑3 as G0 it makes sense in this video If he had started off with 3↑↑↑↑3 as G1 then it would be G64 instead of G63
@raynyergaming2475
@raynyergaming2475 11 ай бұрын
5:11, Remember about rule 2? Apparently, The 4th tree is not legal. Because, the 1st tree was 1 yellow seed, but the 4th tree contains A YELLOW SEED!
@alansmithee419
@alansmithee419 Жыл бұрын
1:32 Expressions like this are usually said to be undefined since the only realistic way to get an infinity is to be calculating a limit (infinity not being a number), so the 1 may be a limit as well, in which case the way you got to one would determine the result - it is not always 1. e.g. (1+1/n)^n as n --> inf gives e, not 1 as the expression "1^inf=1" would imply, even though the exponent tends to infinity and the base tends to 1. So in this regard we cannot define 1^inf=1, and you'll run into similar problems with tetration.
@Kris_with_Banana
@Kris_with_Banana Жыл бұрын
You can see here, the limitless possibilities of math, otherwise known to mathematicians as "fuck it, more"
@Faiez-z8e
@Faiez-z8e 22 күн бұрын
I love how you make adding 1 to a number so complicated
@spieagentl
@spieagentl Жыл бұрын
Am I mistaken, or are the greater than signage in the last section flipped? Regardless, this was a very informative and well-made video! Thank you for the lesson!
@MaharetS
@MaharetS Жыл бұрын
they are
@MyOneFiftiethOfADollar
@MyOneFiftiethOfADollar Жыл бұрын
This is a little too easy, but I have ask "what is the smallest large number that ONE can imagine"?
@datguy3333
@datguy3333 Жыл бұрын
The same thing but negative
@talkysassis
@talkysassis Жыл бұрын
Well, what is a large number?
@Crazytesseract
@Crazytesseract Жыл бұрын
It totally depends upon the person.
@MyOneFiftiethOfADollar
@MyOneFiftiethOfADollar Жыл бұрын
@@datguy3333 problem with that reasoning is -1 > than all other negative integers
@jqbyteam
@jqbyteam Жыл бұрын
I\♾️
@andrewpatton5114
@andrewpatton5114 4 ай бұрын
What amazes me is that Kruskal was able to prove that TREE(n) is finite for any n, even though TREE(3) is so large that we can't even begin to compute it using any kind of recursive function. The closest we can come is using recursive calls of the weak tree function, but even that is so powerful that we can't begin to compute it: tree(4)>G64, but the innermost calling of the weak tree function for a lower bound on TREE(3) is tree(7), and then, the result is used as the argument for 7 more layers of the weak tree function, and then that result is iterated into the weak tree function tree(n) times for four more layers. Moreover, TREE(3) is negligible in comparison to TREE(4).
@kazuhikoriku
@kazuhikoriku Жыл бұрын
So quick question…. Am I the only one that got totally lost after 2:00 … cuz like I have no freaking clue what happened after nor how I ended up here
@TomatoGuy-737
@TomatoGuy-737 8 ай бұрын
Haven’t watched the rest but so far this part is kind of confusing to me cause I'm a student and haven’t learnt anything about "e" yet 😅
@XP5GermanGC_Mapper
@XP5GermanGC_Mapper 2 ай бұрын
No u need help?
@shaunnotsean4308
@shaunnotsean4308 Жыл бұрын
Isn't graham's number g64? Either way, it's huge. You made a difficult concept somewhat easy to understand. Great video!
@PeaceTheBall
@PeaceTheBall Жыл бұрын
it's g64 if you define 3^^^^3 as g1, but in this video it's defined as g0
@TheSpotify95
@TheSpotify95 Жыл бұрын
The only difference in this video was that g1 (hexation) was defined here as g0, and g2 (the thing with so many arrows we can't write it down) was defined as g1. The principles are still the same.
@rodjacksonx
@rodjacksonx Жыл бұрын
@@TheSpotify95 - The principle's the same, but it still matters if it's literally wrong, especially THAT wrong. That's like saying that a google is 1 followed by 99 zeroes. Sure, you're close conceptually, and may still make your point, but you're literally giving the wrong definition of something with a very clearly stated and well-known definition, and you would fail by putting that answer on any test.
@Instructor876
@Instructor876 Жыл бұрын
​@@rodjacksonxGoogol. Be precise when criticizing others about precision. 😉
@rodjacksonx
@rodjacksonx Жыл бұрын
@@Instructor876 - If you find that comparable enough to be worth mentioning, more power to you.
@NephiylusBaphson
@NephiylusBaphson Ай бұрын
Nesting TREES and putting g64 as the base integer is absolutely fucking insane and I love it. And even then, it's still infinitely closer to 0 than to infinity. Wild.
@alvintuffing
@alvintuffing Жыл бұрын
3 hexation 3 is a mathematical operation that belongs to the hyperoperation sequence. It is also known as hexation and is the sixth operation in the sequence. The hyperoperation sequence is an infinite sequence of arithmetic operations that starts with a unary operation (the successor function with n = 0) and continues with the binary operations of addition (n = 1), multiplication (n = 2), exponentiation (n = 3), tetration (n = 4), pentation (n = 5), hexation (n = 6), and so on. The hexation operation can be defined recursively in terms of the previous operation, pentation, as follows: a ↑↑↑↑↑↑ b = a ↑↑↑↑ (a ↑↑↑↑↑↑(b-1)) where a and b are positive integers. For example, 3 hexation 3 can be calculated as follows: 3 ↑↑↑↑↑↑ 3 = 3 ↑↑↑↑ (3 ↑↑↑↑↑↑(2)) = 3 ↑↑↑ (3 ↑↑(3 ↑↑(3 ↑↑(3 ↑ 3)))) = 3 ↑↑ (3 ↑^(4) 27) = 3 ↑^(5) 7,625,597,484,987 Therefore, 3 hexation 3 is equal to 7,625,597,484,987.
@alvintuffing
@alvintuffing Жыл бұрын
Sure! As I mentioned earlier, Graham’s number G63 is equal to 3 ↑↑↑… (with 63 arrows). To express this number in scientific notation, we can use the following steps: Convert the number to decimal notation by writing it as a power tower of 3’s: 3 ↑↑↑... (with 63 arrows) = 3^(3^(3^(3^(3^(... (with 63 threes) ... ))))) Count the number of threes in the power tower. In this case, there are 63 threes. Subtract 1 from the number of threes to get the exponent of the scientific notation. In this case, the exponent is 62. Write the significand or mantissa by dividing the original number by 3 raised to the power of the exponent: 3 ↑↑↑... (with 63 arrows) / (3^62) = 1.611... × 10^19728 Therefore, Graham’s number G63 expressed in scientific notation is approximately 1.611 × 10^19728. I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
@Lopolo28
@Lopolo28 5 ай бұрын
@@alvintuffing You are so horribly wrong. 3 hexation 3 or (3↑↑↑↑3) is not even close to 7,625,597,484,987. 3↑↑3 is 7,625,597,484,987. ↑ doesn't start as addition, but as power. 3↑3 => 3*3*3 => 27. Therefore 3↑↑3 => 3↑3↑3 => 3↑27 => 7,625,597,484,987. And Grahams number is much larger that 1.611 × 10^19728. You are either some kind of AI or you just didn't understand how this operation works.
@alvintuffing
@alvintuffing 5 ай бұрын
@@Lopolo28 Oh, I forgotten. Thx for correcting me.
@savantoine
@savantoine 3 ай бұрын
​@@alvintuffing 3(4)= 1.6× trillion number. 3(5) kill googlplex. Before to way (7.6 trillion) sorry my English.
@idontknowmusictheory532
@idontknowmusictheory532 Жыл бұрын
Very interesting. Awesome job!
@chetan_naik
@chetan_naik 3 ай бұрын
Addition, multiplication, exponentiation, tetration, pentation, hexation, heptation and so on upto Graham's numberation. How much would be 3 of Graham's numberation?
@smizmar8
@smizmar8 Жыл бұрын
So, 3 tetrated to 4, is the same as 3 penetrated to 3? Am I getting that right?
@eliottgarnero9622
@eliottgarnero9622 Жыл бұрын
No 3 tetrated to 4 is 3^3^3^3 3 pentated to 3 is 3^^3^^3 or a tower of 3^3^3^3... wiff a lengf of 3 tetrated to 3
@zfloyd1627
@zfloyd1627 Жыл бұрын
"3 penetrated to 3" lol
@theasianthatsbetterthanyou8324
@theasianthatsbetterthanyou8324 Жыл бұрын
phrasing.
@smizmar8
@smizmar8 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for your response, you both helped. It's that in the video they are the exact same number, which seemed unusual.
@GoldenBear01
@GoldenBear01 Жыл бұрын
7:36 got you arrow the wrong way around.
@gopalsamykannan2964
@gopalsamykannan2964 Жыл бұрын
Thanks for your explanation !
@spoon_s3
@spoon_s3 Жыл бұрын
Ok but what’s the point to compute/imagine such big numbers without any uses
@wedmunds
@wedmunds 9 ай бұрын
100% of numbers between 0 and 1 have never been used
@Gabriel_JudgeofHell
@Gabriel_JudgeofHell 9 ай бұрын
@@wedmundswouldnt it be 99.9999999999....9
@michellemurphree3442
@michellemurphree3442 Жыл бұрын
3:40 3 hexated to 3 is g1 grahams number is g64
@Questiala124
@Questiala124 Жыл бұрын
Say we have our hyper operation f(x). We start with f1(x) which is 1+1 then we go to f2(x) which is x+2, f3=x*2, f4=x^2, f5(x)=x^x and so on. My question is can we show fractional for a of these hyper-operations. Such as f0.5(x) or fe(x)
@magicmulder
@magicmulder Жыл бұрын
I like how mathematicians see it as a game to come up with ever larger numbers without using existing ones (obviously you can always say “n+1” for every n thrown at you). Rayo’s number was a bit of a cop out b/c it’s basically just “the largest number you can ever come up with under the rules” but not constructive at all.
@tom-lord
@tom-lord Жыл бұрын
Rayo's number is like saying "the biggest number you can define on a big piece of paper", but nobody knows how it would actually be written. And all of the other "big" numbers like TREE(3) can be defined on a much smaller piece of paper. So yeah, it's a bit of a cop out.
@magicmulder
@magicmulder Жыл бұрын
​@@tom-lord Graham's number was actually used in a proof as upper limit, of course you can always build bigger towers, use more arrows etc. There's some short computer program that prints out a number larger than TREE(3) but smaller than Rayo's, and the cool part is how to prove it actually stops.
@tom-lord
@tom-lord Жыл бұрын
@@magicmulder I meant Rayo's number. Typo, sorry.
@sander_bouwhuis
@sander_bouwhuis Жыл бұрын
Personally, I'm a big fan of tetration because it is easy to explain to laymen, yet already leads to incredibly large numbers.
@Agnoobo
@Agnoobo 3 ай бұрын
Tetration is just double arrow
@sander_bouwhuis
@sander_bouwhuis 3 ай бұрын
@@Agnoobo Yes? Tetration yields very big numbers already (way bigger than humans can imagine), but is easy to explain to someone not versed in maths.
@Owlboi
@Owlboi 4 ай бұрын
its so crazy that 3^^3 is already unimaginably large yet it goes up another 2 magnitudes of crazy before we even get to g1, which is in a whole nother universe of insane
@hillaryclinton2415
@hillaryclinton2415 Жыл бұрын
7:48 etc.. the greater than arrow is facing the wrong way
@tomokokuroki2506
@tomokokuroki2506 Жыл бұрын
Then there's Vexation, where you repeatedly hit yourself in the head.
@kiwi_2_official
@kiwi_2_official Жыл бұрын
vexation is the 1,005 level hyperoperation (number derived from hebrew gematria of vex)
@emerster656
@emerster656 4 ай бұрын
6:48 why cant you do that except for the red seed with tree(2)
@carealoo744
@carealoo744 9 ай бұрын
Thank you for finally explaining simply what an up arrow notation actually is, I've been trying to figure that out for a while:)
@MrSNk-h8w
@MrSNk-h8w Жыл бұрын
at 2:59, How does the yellow text 3^3^3 become 7 trillion? shouldnt it become 3^9 which is 19683?
@akira.h.youtube
@akira.h.youtube Жыл бұрын
3^3 is not 9, it’s 27.
@MIBU_153_Scary
@MIBU_153_Scary Жыл бұрын
I had this same issue before where I calculated 19683 but I forgot that the formula of Pentation is much more confusing but I somehow managed to get it right later.
@ahmedhaideralabdaly6719
@ahmedhaideralabdaly6719 Жыл бұрын
Finnaly i found thia comment I didn't understand it too
@desbugfan8429
@desbugfan8429 7 ай бұрын
​@@ahmedhaideralabdaly6719 3^3 is 27, not 9.
An Exact Formula for the Primes: Willans' Formula
14:47
Eric Rowland
Рет қаралды 1,4 МЛН
Giant numbers
7:27
Random Andgit
Рет қаралды 213 М.
Quilt Challenge, No Skills, Just Luck#Funnyfamily #Partygames #Funny
00:32
Family Games Media
Рет қаралды 55 МЛН
It works #beatbox #tiktok
00:34
BeatboxJCOP
Рет қаралды 41 МЛН
Quest To Find The Largest Number
11:43
CodeParade
Рет қаралды 692 М.
I Learned How to Divide by Zero (Don't Tell Your Teacher)
7:36
BriTheMathGuy
Рет қаралды 1,3 МЛН
"It's just a Coincidence"
8:28
Digital Genius
Рет қаралды 694 М.
The rarest move in chess
17:01
Paralogical
Рет қаралды 2,3 МЛН
Mathematical Coincidences
8:11
Kuvina Saydaki
Рет қаралды 256 М.
How Big is Graham's Number? (feat Ron Graham)
8:23
Numberphile
Рет қаралды 1,6 МЛН
The Mystery Of The 0th Root
5:33
BriTheMathGuy
Рет қаралды 668 М.
Every Complex Geometry Shape Explained
11:35
ThoughtThrill
Рет қаралды 704 М.
The Biggest Numbers in the World Size Comparison
10:06
Ridddle
Рет қаралды 3,1 МЛН
Some silly number systems
8:17
Random Andgit
Рет қаралды 224 М.