What is the Largest Number?

What is the biggest, largest, meanest and most terrifying number ever to be conceived?
www.livescience.com/18272-infi... (Does the shape of our universe really prove that a physical infinity exists?)
www.livescience.com/37142-blac... (Is a black hole's singularity really infinitely dense?)
www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmv... (Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel)
www.livescience.com/31981-goog... (Googol and Googolplex)
education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom... (How many atoms in the human body)
education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom... (How many atoms in earth)
www.universetoday.com/36302/at... many atoms in the universe)
phys.org/news174921612.html (Number of different possible Parallel Universes)
mathworld.wolfram.com/SkewesNu... (Skews Numbers)
googology.wikia.com/ (Wiki dedicated to large numbers)
planetmath.org/knuthsuparrowno... up-arrow notation)
mathworld.wolfram.com/GrahamsN... (Grahams Number)
planetmath.org/conwayschaineda... (Chained Arrow Notation)
www.math.osu.edu/~friedman.8/p... (TREE(3))
djm.cc/bignum-results.txt (Loader's Number)
web.mit.edu/arayo/www/bignums.... (Article written by Agustin Rayo)
mathfactor.uark.edu/2007/04/ch... (Interview with Rayo)

[@BigyetiTechnologies]

I like the fact that Graham's number is the upper limit of a range, which means the value they could be looking for might be 24.

[@douche8980]

There leaves a lot of room for dimension where all the lines of said dimension can't exist without crossing each other.

[@kabalofthebloodyspoon]

You are my son

[@MABfan11]

the lower bound is 13

[@vanguard4065]

but the most interesting is that it can’t be any bigger than G64

[@mihaip1179]

Just imagine beings being able to transit through those dimensions!

[@NAFProjects]

Pre-schoolers don't know that mixing up "three" and "tree" can become a number so huge, it's unthinkable.

[@aliince9372]

@@coolestcars1983 "googol" isn't a useful number, nor does it follow normal naming conventions for numbers. And "rayo" is the highschool yard version of "Yeah...well... infinity plus 1!"

[@aliince9372]

Beat me to it.

[@Fiasco.V]

@@coolestcars1983 and SSCG(3)

[@tesseract7586]

kid: *accidentally says TREE(3) instead of 33* me: HAHA REALLY BIG NUMBERS GOIN ON HERE

[@chnlofrndmvids8282]

HEY! I KNOW WHAT TREE(3) IS AND IM IN GRADE 3

[@Yoctopory]

"The solution is between 11 and Grahams number" .. can I just write this as an answer to every question at a math test? It will probably be a correct solution most of the time XD

[@MrDuckFIN]

"2+2= "

[@emadgergis6710]

Mr. Duck o crap

[@alpheusmadsen8485]

Sure, if you can prove it, and there's no reasonable way to whittle down the answer to something more accurate! One of the reasons why Graham's Number is important is that it provided an upper bound to a particular problem that, at the time, was boundless -- and since then, the upper bound to the problem has been whittled down considerably.

[@bruhmomenthdr7575]

“If x=x, then how many possible solutions are there?” Sorry but you’d get that question wrong

[@sayedhusson3876]

@@bruhmomenthdr7575 lol

[@LevatekGaming]

To help understand how large TREE(3) is, TREE(3) - Graham’s Number ≈ TREE(3) Compared to TREE(3), Graham’s Number is basically 0

[@smaller5764]

Ok

[@jameshunt8116]

TREE(10^100)

[@ldrgoogolplex4683]

@@jameshunt8116 Tree(G64)

[@yo-oz3mq]

@@ldrgoogolplex4683 FOOT^10(10^100)

[@rykehuss3435]

If you substract G64 from TREE(3) a G64 times the answer is still basically TREE(3)

[@thedahakha]

Hilbert's hotel sounds like a shit place to stay... Moving to the next room every time someone wants to check in...

[@Youtube_Globetrotter]

Yeah, but dont forget, how late you ever come there is always a room to rent.

[@fatihaksu837]

It's an imaginary hotel. Not actually exist

[@yoshi6236]

Roy Wardenaar ask them to build an extra room near the main hotel *Lenny face*

[@kgratia4748]

Pc Stuff room not floor

[@aaronward7604]

I know room service has got to be terrible

[@mattczech1473]

The temperature, in degrees Kelvin, of my mixtape. That's the largest number.

[@asj3419]

Guys, stop talking in inverses, Its getting a bit cold for my taste here.

[@VenomOnPC]

+Sod Alfredsod Stay frosty guys, we got a cold-blooded person right here.

[@samsal841]

+Sod Alfredsod yes

[@notme5441]

It's On Fire

[@Aleschu]

Its just Kelvin, not degrees Kelvin.

[@hyppoh5294]

people: something-million Me, a person who watched all parts of very large numbers: indescribable cardinal

[@imahinion]

Me: Haha I pity the fool he didn’t watch the end. Also Me: *Absolute Infinity*

[@BalthazarMaignan]

You watched all the videos? I don't have the time for it 😂😂

[@existing3628]

Boogilgandigan and Goobawamba are two odd names for oddly large numbers.

[@morganlucchi]

5 years ago I added this video to the "watch later" list. Sadly, I had too little experience with English and mathematics to understand anything you say. Today, I came back. I am finally worthy

[@ilikechippies2551]

ok g

[@Orincaby]

@@ilikechippies2551 truck

[@MeganVictoriaKearns]

@@Orincaby k

[@katakana1]

"It has to have some use..." including the use of being the largest number??

[@adamcole4623]

@@katakana1 Except Googologists view it as essentially unable to be accurately defined, so for now Rayo wears the crown.

[@katakana1]

@@adamcole4623 Yep!

[@MarceloPlus]

😂

[@antonioguerrero2367]

Vsauce: "40 is the biggest number... On earth in terms of surface area"

[@Aerialyn]

40²? 40³? 40⁴?

[@potatobob5781]

40googolplexianianian

[@mishka2892]

XD I've seen that, excellent reference

[@mishka2892]

ew

[@devlinmcguire7543]

@@mishka2892 yeah me too that was funny

[@shaawaizhaider3171]

"numbers have an end" -Muhamad ababou

[@user-lt7xw4zs9d]

Shaawaiz Haider

[@lelangardiner126]

XDDDDD WTF MAN UR GOOD WELL NOT BETTER THEN UE MUM OHHHH

[@lelangardiner126]

Sorry man that was my drunk britha

[@ShadowPhoenix4798]

Him did you say there were infinite numbers

[@anafranilgunk4469]

PSYCH!! That's the WRONG numbah!!

[@user-gd2bj3dp1l]

3^^3=7,625,597,484,987twoarrows

[@iqbaltrojan]

OOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[@user-lt7xw4zs9d]

anafranil gunk

[@change_profile_n8755]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@synexiasaturnds727yearsago7]

Kids trying to be relatable:

[@atkrampardo1]

Everyone posting numbers just mashing their keyboard clearly dont even grasp what arrow notation is Not even starting about the G's part Every number you can mash on your keyboard is incredibly small compared to just 3 arrow arrow arrow 3

[@Kalevasd]

My brain broke when you mentioned the 7x7x7 Rubik's cube.

[@aldebaran584]

Kalevi Rotmg There are even more possibilities for a 16*16*16 Rubik's cube. Duh.

[@Kalevasd]

Kthulhu himself Of course! But the fact that there are more combinations in the 7x7x7 cube than there are atoms in the universe was mind-blowing. Also, the 5x5x5 cube is so far the "hardest" cube I can solve. :/

[@aldebaran584]

Kalevi Rotmg It isn't really that mind blowing... Yet still.

[@Kalevasd]

Kthulhu himself It is for me. :P

[@coopergates9680]

Kalevi Rotmg and then there are Rubik's tesseracts.

[@Lordidude]

Man what a flashback to see your channel in my feed. I used to watch your videos religiously.

[@felixroux]

here is how to get to tree(3): imagine you have a single colour (this is how to get to tree(1)), say red, the first 'tree' you make has to have at most 1 dot (in red)(also note that every tree must contain at least one dot). the second tree you make has to have *at most* 2 dots in it (in this case also in red).the catch is no previous trees can be contained in later trees, so in other words you can't have all the points in a previous tree connected to the same *closest COMMON* point, meaning tree(1) is just 1. tree(2) is 3 but tree(3) is absolutely humongous.

[@huckthatdish]

Felix Roux so big that we have no meaningful way to describe even the number of digits it has in base 10. It’s not exactly known, but even it’s lower bound is an incomprehensible huge number which can only be defined through a recursive function.

[@antipro4483]

@@huckthatdish in base TREE(3) its 10

[@Argentix]

the total number of planck time intervals experienced by every plank legnth (cubic) in the observable universe is around 8.3x10^126.. at least we can beat googol in our own universe ">_>

[@kallek919]

We can do that with a much greater margin: All possible combinations of all atoms in the observable Universe is a number beginning with a 1 followed by approximately 10^80 zeros.

[@douche8980]

If the multiverse tend to exist than it's said that the average distance between universes based on the observed rate of expansion in ours would be between a Googol and Googolplex light years apart.

[@coffeemanwantsumcoffee]

10 (^10)x100 Aids number 10 (^10)x10 (^10)x100 Aries number

[@averagelizard2489]

Actually, WE CAN BEAT A GOOGOLPLEX!! :D, the number of possible combinations of each particle in the Universe is 10^10^10^13.

[@Betacak3]

I find the fact that a 7x7x7 Rubiks Cube has more permutations than there are atoms in the observable universe astonishing. Imagine how many permutations all those cubes would have if you took all atoms in the observable universe and used them to build Rubiks Cubes.

[@vanessacherche6393]

Now thems some big numbas yes yes, I think that is what Graham's number pertains to actually. Very big, more numbers than a mind is literally capable of containing. BIG

[@philv2529]

Chuck Norris could still solve it.

[@ringoferrer2343]

I appreciate how you spelt Rubik's correctly

[@johnjeffreys6440]

I’m looking forward to part 2 of this series, then 3, and 4, and so on for infinity. Infinity is allowed there. In ten years they’ll be saying, “remember when we thought Rayo’s number was big.”

[@jialixx]

Great video, I like your passion for the large numbers.

[@beophobic9653]

You ever take a dump and it stunk?

[@TacomaPaul]

The largest number is 42. All other numbers are either multiples of or divisions of all or part of it. Go ahead, try it.

[@ConnorR.mp3]

:O

[@ConnorR.mp3]

By that logic, the largest number is 1 All other numbers are either multiples of or divisions of all or part of it. Go ahead, try it.

[@TacomaPaul]

Read "Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy".

[@ConnorR.mp3]

TacomaPaul I know, I've read it. 42 is the answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything.

[@TacomaPaul]

TheScoutPro And there ya go.

[@speedsolver2737]

Why end at G64? Why not G65 or even G9999999999999999999999999999999Googolplex to the G999999999999999999999999th power? Then multiply that number by a googolplexian? Then you can STILL add one to it. There is no largest number. You can always add one.

[@Smittel]

But thats not allowed... Lets do this: (G64^10^10^10^100^TREE(3)^(10^10^10^100^(G64)))!(G64) Its Grahams Number to the power of a Googolplexian to the Power of TREE(3) to the power of another Googolplexian To the power of Grahams Number again. And of this you take G64 the Factorial of this. This would be so large, you wont be able to write the number how many digits the number of the amount of digits of the amount of digits this piece of shit would have

[@Husky1121]

Retroundmike You missed some paranthases dude..but I get the idea.. :D

[@bretwood8686]

Because G64 was a specific number used in a mathematical proof. Obviously, there is no largest number, but he set down some rules at the beginning of the video. Basically, what is the largest number that's ever been used for something specific. And G64 was used in a proof.

[@Smittel]

***** Well but you can say that there are less particles in all possible universes and all imaginary universes. and by "G64 the Factorial" i mean G64 !'s behind that

[@immortalmechatheyoutuber3840]

Yeah dude biggest number ever. (Adds 1 to your number)

[@amandakotsubo2189]

Every year I come back to this video just to relearn about numbers... I can’t help it... this video is so entertaining

[@camerongray7767]

This was the very first your be video I ever watched!

[@icyburger]

sharkee = middle eastern vsauce

[@madkirk7431]

... yes... Just yes...

[@arvansoso8798]

Yup Your Right

[@potatobob5781]

HE'S EVEN BALD AND GLASSES

[@UserUser-zl2dx]

vsauce 4?

[@potawatomi100]

Great video and really well narrated. Your the best.

[@walternelson7745]

me:the pasword is on the back of the router the back of the router:

[@MozartJunior22]

The other guy could have won by saying "Rayo's number +1"

[@5up3rp3rs0n]

No "BlaBla Number +1"

[@GamerAwsome-un5fh]

it should definitely count!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :()

[@GamerAwsome-un5fh]

;) ;););):):):)

[@onerb9]

Logo so Rayo's number times 2

[@nicomoron001]

MozartJunior22 i might be late for this, but if Rayo said infinity, it would always be a tie

[@spacedoutorca4550]

*Rayo’s Number + Rayo’s Number* = ?????????????????????????????

[@cody_saleupolu9916]

SpaceOrca equals rayos number squared

[@liam.28]

SpaceOrca Rayo's numberx2

[@urijahkeshka]

+ 1...

[@paulmarti9921]

Rayos#(rayos# of up arrows)rayos#

[@referenceyouwouldntget7072]

infinite to the power of infinite

[@Leimag]

why did i get so many likes? use a time machine to find out

[@hyppoh5294]

thanks for this

[@KyrusR]

Wow...

[@fourthreetwo_8378]

Then add 1 too googlequinplex and it’s a larger number..

[@tatip9881]

How long did this take u

[@Cattoh]

And the Mario plex is no an official number i can’t write it because it’s so big KZbin can’t candle it so here’s a tiny bit of it 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0 really it’s a really tiny bit I cut it 3 times

[@harshavardhanreddy2691]

9:14 Me to my friend just before a jumpscare on a Halloween night

[@hedderbunderna4769]

"I suggest you go sit on a toilet now cause things are about to get insane" *gets out of bed to go sit on toilet*

[@CaJoel]

If a regular Rubix cube can create such a big number, imagine a Rubix cube as big as the observable universe and every face is as small as a plank length...

[@dudedude7998]

Joelimations n’ stuff the plank radius of the universe is 7.04x10^61 and the volume is 4.65x10^185. assume you could get a cube to fit that's a Google length width and height (10^100 close enough) each plank length being a square on the cube. With a rubiks cube (3)x(3)= 43,252,003,274,489,856,000 and 7x7= 1.95x10^160 even if you put a (Google)x(Google) and the answer was raised to the same correct magnitude of a rubiks cube that size you still wouldn't scratch grams number. If every square plank had the same size cube as the one that would fit in the entire universe and you took all the possibilities of out comes from all the cube you would still not even scratch g2. NOT EVEN CLOSE

[@horadounboxingdovlad5845]

Congratulations, you bugged me

[@popna2694]

U spelled rubiks wrong

[@jjc212x]

Well if you see, 43^00-31^01 (Made it up.) IT IS 43^00. which is 43,000,000,000,000,000. (43 Quintillion)

[@vijaykokate9202]

dude dude wow you are impressive

[@Sph1003]

12:25 - TREE(3) is so large is impossible to comprehend it in simple terms - Next video: *The Enormous TREE(3) - Numberphile* Me after watching the video - Oh, that's clear -

[@rykehuss3435]

That video doesnt explain anything about TREE(3) because to explain it requires understanding some quite complicated maths. There is no simple way to explain it why it grows so rapidly after TREE(2). In comparison Rayo's Number is much easier to explain. Just explain symbols used in first order set theory and how they all work, then imagine an expression a googol symbols long and that expression expresses Rayo's Number. Just like 10! (10 factorial) expresses 3 628 800

[@douche8980]

It's so large the growth rate of such a theorem can't even be explained using the FGH.

[@R3cce]

Yes it can. The growth rate of TREE(n) falls between the SVO and LVO in fgh. I can confirm this because i looked at googology wiki which explains the TREE sequence

[@R3cce]

These ordinals are beyond gamma zero in fgh

[@R3cce]

These ordinals are beyond gamma zero in fgh

[@dhaazduan3dargin797]

Infinity is NOT a number, it is the name of a concept meaning that numbers go on forever and ever. For example: Googol, Mega Googol, Centillion, Googolplex, Googolplexian, Skewes's Number, Moser's Number, Folkman's Number, Graham's Number, TREE(3), Loader's Number, Rayo's Number, BIG FOOT, Little Bigeddon, Sasquatch, Hollom's Number, Oblivion, Utter Oblivion, Sam's Number, and still son on!

[@ItachiYGO]

lol...Rayo's number is literally just "the smallest number bigger than whatever you say" doesn't sound any better than saying "your number +1" to me.

[@DarkGharren]

"Your number + 1" would be relative to another value, so would be "the biggest number that is not infinity" - such relative numbers could never be "the biggest". Rayo's number however is by its definition an absolute (even if theoretical) value, thus legit.

[@someguydudeGAME]

***** It's still relative because it essentially set down rules for what the biggest numbers could be, and then just said "whatever is bigger than that."

[@nacho74]

Itachi Uchiha Grahams number is the fcking larg number

[@coopergates9680]

nadjim73 Well, Graham's is G64, so keep going, G65, G170, G282475249....

[@someguydudeGAME]

Cooper Gates Yeah but it's at least useful. Otherwise you could, essentially, make G(G64) and just put Graham's Number to its own level and make a number so absurd that nothing can touch it.

[@yukiyama87]

Infinity is an easier number to understand. weird.

[@RenaeA16]

Infinity isn't a number, but you might be right lol.

[@messyzephyr]

The concept of infinity drove Georg Cantor insane. It's not so easy to understand either.

[@flamingfox2984]

How do you say "On Crack" so calmly. I laughed at that moment so much.

[@liljoebean]

when did he say that

[@nuclearskittels5589]

The largest number is me setting my microwave to popcorn mode

[@TheRSmokey]

I love how fast the tree(n) functions are growing all the steps you need to go trough to get Grahams number with the 3's and arrows and g1-g64. but with tree(3) you go: tree(1) = 1 tree(2) = 3 tree(3) = stupidly big (makes Grahams number look like 1)

[@spencerdumlao1654]

tree(4) = Impossible

[@averagelizard2489]

​@@spencerdumlao1654Fun Fact: Graham's number (TREE(3)) is TREE(4) times smaller than TREE(4) lol

[@harrisonshone7769]

The largest named number currently in existence (according to Googology wiki) is called Little Biggadon. I haven't looked up what it is exactly to preserve some of my sanity, but I know that it did beat out Rayo's number as well as BIG FOOT, which is an extension of the same principle used to get Rayo's number. So it's pretty huge. I don' think its useful for measuring anything though.

[@fifa19predictions49]

Harrison Shone ur wrong bigg beggedon aka sasquatch is way bigger than little beggedon also utter oblivion is 2nd biggest named number and first. Is sams number i researched it on googology.wiki fandom lol

[@corvax8644]

Lucas Lucas Sam’s number doesn’t count according to the site because of how unsourced and poorly described the “number” is

[@platypuschallenger]

Sam's number is a joke, a pretty obvious joke

[@NearChannel2576]

@@platypuschallenger it’s not. It has no citation and it was easy to make. The number is completely indescribable, which easily beats any other number at the moment. It’s simply a fact lol

[@platypuschallenger]

@@NearChannel2576 ...do you even know what the definition of sams number is??

[@DarkFrozenDepths]

Ironically, it's numberphile that ended up explaining TREE(3) and Rayo's number to me.... And I got a pretty good understanding of different infinities between them and vsauce.

[@kmchmk]

Well explained.

[@garrettweimer288]

Rayo's number + 1. Ha

[@coopergates9680]

Garrett Guitarman I guess you threw a rule or two out the window.

[@ElektrikPichuZ]

Cooper Gates Rayo's number did too.

[@coopergates9680]

★ Cuddlepuff ★ Yeah, it and Loader's were just in contests (with terms and conditions). G64 wins according to the original 4 rules.

[@NeoLogicification]

Cooper Gates Actually I think Tree [3] is used in a mathematical proof of some kind, thus making it the largest number used in a practical way. I'm not sure though.

[@coopergates9680]

NeoLogicification So it's the longest sequence of trees of length 3 under some conditions? Of course the numbers TREE(4) and so on exist, so what was done with the particular case of 3?

[@vanessacherche6393]

I knew about Graham's numba from Numberphile's channel (grasping at it still makes smoke come out of my ears), I liked the vid and understand why the very large numbers become unexplainable without training. I would watch more videos similar to this fer sure!

[@moodyhasan886]

Wait... The probabilities in a 7X7 Rubik's cube is a number larger than all the atoms in the Universe... Mind. Blown. Simply incomprehensible.

[@ticcitobyrogers2097]

same

[@jazzabighits4473]

More than just that

[@garychap8384]

_"in the_ *visible* _Universe"_ ... there, fixed it for you.

[@merek6986]

Imagine the amount of atoms in all the possible universes where a different configuration set of that cube exists...

[@garychap8384]

@@merek6986 Worse, imagine how many permutations there are in a universe that consists ONLY of tightly packed 7x7 rubiks cubes ; )

[@b.lonewolf417]

I can't decide if I love the video or the comments more!

[@danielroder830]

Imagine how big TREE(G64) would be !

[@sagittariusa9279]

ok, this is big! :D

[@ericarsenault7738]

Far smaller than scg (3), let alone scg(13), or loader number or big foot

[@rykehuss3435]

Eric Arsenault which are laughably tiny in comparison to Oblivion or Utter Oblivion

[@fernandodealbapineyro4667]

@@rykehuss3435 Oblivion? Did you mean, infinity?

[@rykehuss3435]

H i Nope. Oblivion and Utter Oblivion are real numbers. Infinity is not. Look them up. googology.wikia.com/wiki/Oblivion

[@Maximillian1329]

*Look around for a moment* ...10

[@coopergates9680]

Maximillian Fox Dude, that's in base Loader's Number O.o

[@didthismeyouto3839]

"Wow, look at those mattresses! There must be so many!" "Wow" "How many do you think there are?" *looks around for a few seconds* "4."

[@randomperson5579]

Rayo([φRayo(10^100)](Rayo(10^100)) (φ defined as the Veblen function) (the Rayo(10^100) inside of [] is the level/subscript of the Veblen function) I call it the "Rayveb Constant" aka Reverb Constant.

[@ashmenser7959]

Tbh, TREE(3) is easier to explain where it comes from than Graham’s Number. It’s just playing a game, sure there’s no proper notation to show how massive it is, but the game of trees is easy enough to explain.

[@Eliseo_M_P]

Yeah, and G(64) does not have any more use to mathematicians as it is no longer the upper bound on the problem it was used for. With TREE(3), on the other hand, we can only expected the known lower bound to get bigger over time.

[@YourHomieJC]

After googol my brain was just like: "big number @.@"

[@benyed1636]

+Job Koppenol Yeah, he lost be at "before".

[@NFSDominator]

I found it all pretty cool, i just wish he had been able to explain Rayo's number

[@rcksnxc361]

Wait... He said a googol is 1 with 100 zeros next to it... Technically that is kinda wrong... Because then it would be like this: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 Maybe I forgot or added a fe zeros but u get the point P.s. This is a true joke XD

[@ToadR0XMK]

+Rickson Geometry Dash That number you typed is one.

[@grizzlywhisker]

Great video! I was never the best with mathematics but was always very interested in it. Your video definitely helped me to think outside the box a little bit and learn something new. Thanks!

[@emds2092]

tengo años viendo este video tu forma de hablar tiene algo muy relajante que me hace venir a este video cada vez que me siento mal muchas gracias por este video

[@chromosoze]

4:34 imagine if he said that without the text showing up

[@reflexlexus7840]

infinity is not a number it is a term

[@sofusjejlskovbrandt1254]

+reflexlexus 676 Infinity is a category of numbers like Aleph Null and Omega etc.

[@jamez6398]

+reflexlexus 676 Right. Omega is a number.

[@MellohiHellohi]

reflexlexus correct it is a made up "number" standing for a really big amount.

[@marinan9418]

reflexlexus idea/size

[@jayo9221]

reflexlexus that's some true ass shit right there.

[@darrenstrange2244]

I love this. I find it exciting, interesting, fascinating, and strangely enough, incredibly relaxing listening to your explanation!

[@crazyxenomorph8725]

SCG(13) is bigger than TREE(3) + Tat’s Number is G128 if you wanted to know, Rayo’s Number is also the biggest known number I know.

[@GamrGalore3K]

11:16 replace tree(3) with it, I was dying the whole time

[@ServerDestroyers]

Hello you have reached customer service, my name is Sharkee, how may I help you?

[@lolbajset]

Have I provided a satisfactory explanation of the world's largest number in a timely and courteous manner?

[@hyperdrive282]

9:16 I actually AM on a toilet lol

[@JoseGarcia-vt8mo]

EWWWWWWWW

[@JustATest01]

@@JoseGarcia-vt8mo i mean you need to all to things to survive so when you're the toilet for you so it's just natural to go ON A FUKIJGGH TOILET WHAT AM I DOING WITH MY LIFE

[@BelldofersMatlack]

JustATest 01 umm... Me going to fix “I mean living things need to poop, if a living thing didn’t poop they would get constipation and die...” After that I don’t get what your saying :|

[@maggievong8553]

Lol it sounds like a good poop XD

[@googlecorn1410]

R/youngpeopleyoutube

[@PC_Simo]

4:00 Also; who knows, you might be able to beat googol, with the number of all elementary particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, photons, Higgs bosons, dark matter particles (whatever those are), etc.), in the observable Universe. Or even just atoms, in the *_WHOLE_* Universe. 🤔

[@michaelhughes3780]

2 to the 82,589,933 Power - 1 is the largest prime number we know.

[@philippinesball5552]

this is so educational thnx i enjoyed

[@themirac5614]

oh wow

[@Afilon]

Graham's number is pretty big. But how about this: I define F1 as G(G64), that is Graham's series for Graham's number. F2 is F1(F1), which is G[G(G64)]. So that's Graham's series for the number F1. F3 is F2[F2(F2)] Imagine FG64, which is F, but instead of 3 or 4, it's Graham's number. Now imagine I would write FF9. Which is F for the number F9. FFF9 is F for FF9. Let's think of FFF...FFF9 and the 3 dots represent an FG64 number of Fs. And we call this number A1. A2 is an A1 number of Fs. My number is A64 (in honor of Graham's 64 from which I started).

[@starrecipe9]

Hey this is maybe the only time I've actually seen someone make a number that really is significantly bigger than Graham's number in the comments section. Let me see if I understand this correctly. F1 = G(G64), and FG64 = G(G(G...(G64)...)) with a 1 + G64 number of G's. Then A1 is FFF....FFF9 with FG64 number of F's. And A2 is FFF...FFF9 with an A1 number of F's. And then you have A64, which is Afilon's number. I'm trying to understand exactly how big this number is. Graham's number scores omega + 1 on the big number scale, which I'm sure about. FG64 would score about omega + 2. Then A1 would score omega + 3 I think, and A64 would score omega + 4. I'm not positive but that's what I think it is. This is in reference to something called the fast growing hierarchy. Omega is the first transfinite ordinal.

[@Afilon]

starrecipe9 I'm guessing TREE(3) is still larger, right?

[@starrecipe9]

Yeah, TREE(3) is very big. The TREE function grows very fast. It's really like the person in the video said. It grows so fast that it just doesn't seem like there is a lay man explanation for it. It is possible to understand what the TREE function is, but even once you know what it is it's not clear how fast it grows, and it grows much faster than you can imagine. The Googology website has some information on it, and they have a page on the Fast-growing hierarchy. You can learn about the fast-growing hierarchy on youtube, but searching for David Metzler's videos. He goes deeper and deeper into it for a long while, but never gets up to anything comparable to the TREE function.

[@anticorncob6]

Afilon G(Graham's number) = GrahamplexG(Grahamplex) = GrahamduplexG(Grahamduplex) = GrahamtriplexAnd so on with Grahamquadriplex, Grahamquinplex, Grahamsextiplex, Grahamseptiplex, Grahamoctiplex, Grahamnoniplex, and Grahamdeciplex.I'd love for this to get popularized.

[@vanessacherche6393]

I saw the FF and the digits, and for a split second wondered if someone was talking about Final Fantasy games, but then my nerd brain caught up with reality. Funny for a sec anyway...

[@ashdudex2]

This video should get at least 50 million or more views!!

[@shay3355]

No matter how big a number is, it'll always be closer to 0 than to infinity...

[@megameat8356]

so true though

[@ganondorfchampin]

The trivial way to make a number larger than Rayo's number is just to add one to it, or at one to the number of symbols being used ect. The non-trivial way would be to create a language more expansive than set theory.

[@michailbialkovicz878]

-1/12 is the largest number as it's sum of infinite amount of numbers

[@michailbialkovicz878]

***** 1+2+3+... actually has an answer and that is -1/12. There are plenty of proofs, either simple ones, relying on some already known sums of infinite divergent series or more rigorous obtained by means of complex analysis. Sum of all naturals is in fact equal to -1/12, this is proven and there is no doubt that's true.

[@ThisNameIsG]

Michail Bialkovicz it's a divergent series, you can't sum it. Sorry EDIT: changed convergent to divergent

[@ThisNameIsG]

***** Yes, sorry I meant divergent

[@michailbialkovicz878]

ThisNameIsG It most certainly is divergent series and yet it can be summed, and that sum is -1/12. That is proven fact, there are proofs online, just google one, the fact you don't understand this and refuse to look for a proof doesn't mean this sum isn't correct.

[@ThisNameIsG]

Michail Bialkovicz Calm it with the accusations, read what I said again, digest it, and understand. Thanks

[@Jotizs]

The largest number is the number of days we're still gonna be in quarantine.

[@Hesitating_]

I came to a conclusion that you can count past infinity № is cardinal numbers it's basically infinity but different you see there's no other way to count past infinity but you can if you change the cardinal number to ordinal numbers it's basically the same but the ordinal number can overlap cardinal numbers which mean it can overlap infinity,but theres a common letter in ordinal number,(*)that is Ω if you put it at the end of infinity you can count past infinity it's Ω1,Ω2,Ω3 and so on and so on now for the other people who doesn't get it imagine a line a infinite amount of lines imagine putting a line in front of the infinite amount of lines so what goes past infinity (read again to understand,read where the asteris is)

[@mathisehrhart4207]

gg, you discovered Wainer hierarchies

[@lego46143]

What about TREEfiddy

[@z121231211]

Wow, I think this is a much better explanation of arrow notation than the one on numberphile. Definitely going to watch more of this channel.

[@Daniel-ef6gg]

If you define numbers by starting with 0 and counting up, the largest number is -1. No matter how you reach this number, no matter what the characteristic of the field you try to define, it is the first number where, if you try to add 1 again, you reach a number that you have already defined, and thus you have already defined all the numbers that you can define in this way. Thus, my answer to your question is -1. If you want to learn about the use for this definition, read up on 'two's complement'

[@aurelienb3984]

And if you define a function which is X(0) = 1, X(1) = LBN, X(2) = GULBN, ..... keeping applying the same formula, how about X(GULBN) ?

[@ChrisBandyJazz]

Great video! I was disappointed that there was no explanation of TREE(3), I've always wanted to learn more about it. From 12:00-13:00 there wasn't really any information, but otherwise enjoyed it! Also, Utter Oblivion is much larger than Rayo's number.

[@Chris-dg3ns]

All numbers beyond Rayo's number are only extensions of Rayo's number or ill-defined. And meaningless.

[@averagelizard2489]

It's Ill defined so it doesn't count. If it does count, then Croutonillion should be your answer as the biggest Ill defined number.

[@EpicFishStudio]

Okay, here is some I get up with a*a = a^2 a^a = a↑2 a↑a = a→2 a→2 = ... ... = a☺2 number equal to 3☺3

[@lincolnpepper816]

☺

[@lawrencemaweu]

Graham's number is so complex that people who use it in explanations still use the base of three. The can't even change it to 4 for variety....

[@thetoilet9911]

Googol:im the biggest Googolplex:hold my plex Graham's number:abe salo Rayo's number: tom ho 0 Garden number: Abe My number snn: 0's

[@Mariomario3425]

How about that: Rayo's number--->Rayo's number--->Rayo's number--->...Rayo's number...Rayo's number--->...Rayo's number) where the chained arrow notation is repated RAYO'S NUMBER times and you call that a R(1). Then you repeat it except Rayo's number is replaced by R(1), and you repeat the process R1 times. That is R(2). Then you make the same process over and over again until you get R(R(R(R(R(R....(R(Rayo's Number), and the amount of "R" 's here is R(Rayo's Number). That is TR(1). You after that repeat everything up there, except Rayo's number is TR1, and the "R(x)" 's are called TRn(1). You do that until TRtr(TRtr(TRtr(TRtr(TRtr(TRtr....(TRtr(TR(1)), where there are TR(1) "TR1" 's over there. That is TRO(1). All above is repaten, until you will get TROtro(TROtro(TROtr(TROtr(TROtr(TROtr...|TRO(1) "TROtro"s later|(TROtr(TR(1)). You repeat that^ again to TROP(1), then TROPH(1), then TROPHY(1) until TROPHYSTOLENGUYS(TROPHY(1)!!!!!!!!!!!!!|TROPHY(1) factorials later...|!!!!!!!). And that is called WIN(1). Repeat WIN(WIN(WIN... Well, you get the idea. THAT IS JUST WIN(2). Continue to WIN(WIN(WIN(WIN...|"WIN" WINS later|WIN(TROPHYSTOLENGUYS(1). That is called a WINS(1). Feed WINS(WINS(1) to the tree algorithm, this is a Treerayo. Feed Treerayo to the algorithm. G(G64) times. That is the GTR(1) number or the GrahamTreeRayo(1) number. I need now my notation, the $ notation. When you do for example 3$3 all what are you doing is 3--->3--->3. 6$6=6--->6---->6---->6---->6---->6. 2$$2=2$2$2. 3$$3=3$3$3$3. GTR(1)$$$$$$|GTR(1) $s later|$$$$$$(GTR(1)=GTR(2). GTR(n)$|GTR(n) $s later|$GTRn=GTR(n+1. GTR(GTR(GTR(|GTR(1) GTRs later|)GTR)=TheBiggestNumberICouldEverMakeInUnderAHour, or TBNICEMIUA The smallest number bigger than any finite number set in a expression in the language of set theory with a TBNICEMIUA symbols or less. If you can beat this WITHOUT using any of my comment I am proud.

[@Cha0sLord93]

Why don't you write it in a standard form

[@Mariomario3425]

That is FRIGGIN IMPOSSIBRU.

[@4punkdude]

Mariomario3425 The smallest number than any finite number set in a expression in the language of set theory with D^RN (where RN is rayo's number, D^RN(RN^TREE(3)->RN^TREE(3)->RN^TREE(3)->RN^TREE(3)...->RN^TREE(3)) symbols or less. D(k) is where D(k) is the sum of all possible bit strings described by the first k expressions of the calculus of constructions, and there are (RN^TREE(3)!)^D^5(99) times chained arrow notated RN^TREE(3)s I would like to say that we have broken the rules.

[@Ykulvaarlck]

Sir, you are recursing the recursation of recursive recursive recursation. Hell I don't even make sense to myself.

[@anticorncob6]

Mariomario3425 I propose a name for some of the numbers.Rayo(googol) = Rayo's number, as we all know. ThenRayo(Rayo's number) = RayoplexRayo(Rayoplex) = RayoduplexRayo(Rayoduplex) = RayotriplexThen it also goes Rayoquadriplex, Rayoquinplex, Rayosextiplex, Rayoeoctiplex, Rayononiplex, and Rayodeciplex.I hope this idea actually becomes popularized. Because it follows the googolplex, googolduplex, googoltriplex. etc. pattern that we've had before.

[@ryantk84]

I would say the largest number would be the number of different ways the entire universe could have unfolded to its current space and time since the big bang. If since the big bang even single quark or neutrino or even a string particle behaved differently than it did before, it would have resulted in a completely different universe. How many different possible combinations could have resulted to this current moment in time starting from the big bang? And to come up with a larger number would just be calculated at a future time, because the number you could calculate at that time would be smaller than the number calculated a second later. I believe I'll call this Riketz's number.

[@Ihadtochooseaname]

I belive it would still be smaller than, say, Graham's number.

[@CookieFonster]

such a number actually exists, it's called the "promaxima". look it up on googology wiki if you want.

[@CookieFonster]

***** it is

[@kitaisuru]

Riketz well if you go full physic then when you try to approach the "biggest" number, you will always get infinity. Let's say "the number of universes that has different physical constants than our universes", that will instantly give you infinity because ANY number could be choose, not to mention in modern physic there is 11 dimension so...yeah, just go with infinity and be happy would ya :)

[@YY-wu7et]

Riketz He already mentioned that number, 10^10^16. The number of distinct configurations of the universe. Much smaller than a googolplex.

[@trifonmag4205]

Then there is TREE(4), which is so big, you could say its about TREE(4) times bigger than TREE(3)

[@meestyouyouestme3753]

The biggest number ever: how many times I have to rewatch this to get the slightest idea of what they heck they’re talking about.

[@yutyrannus8154]

BIG FOOT NUMBERS

[@kgratia4748]

Infinity (∞) is an ideal kind of number. It is the ultimate concept (and it means *no end).* That is why ∞ is equal to ∞+1.

[@againandagain174]

There are infinite bigger than order infinites.

[@antipro4483]

@@againandagain174 not really

[@douche8980]

There is no such thing as infinite value since infinity is more of a concept than it is a set number. When it comes to operations starting with counting then addition and so on you can have a set of operation which grow faster than any of the operation on the previous set but that's not really going beyond infinity so much as it's creating a new set of fast growing function.

[@rikschaaf]

Rayo's number can be expressed by this sentence and since the sentence can probably be described in set theory in less than a googol symbols, it is self-referential. Therefore it isn't any different than saying " the smallest finite number bigger than any previously used number (aka for integers: x+1)

[@Peter_Schluss-Mit-Lustig]

Rayo's function is not self referential

[@ntilewills5679]

I have a suggestion for the largest number. Tree of Graham's number worth of Primes. Or Rayo's number worth of Prime numbers.

[@PieInTheSky9]

Did anyone else try looking up Tree(3) online but ended up not understanding a single thing about it? lol

[@undead890]

NUmberphile recently did a video describing TREE(3) at a level most people could understand, it's worth a watch.

[@VenetinOfficial]

They should have mentioned a rule that I see would have put a major wrench into Rayo's Number.. Rule: The number should be calculable, if it does not have a calculation it will not count Rayo's Number is not a calculable number, there for Graham's Number is the biggest number... In the calculable sense.

[@starrecipe9]

I think you mean to say that Rayo's function is not calculable, because any integer is theoretically calculable. There is certainly some program that outputs Rayo's number, even though such a program would require close to Rayo's number of symbols to achieve such a feat.

[@messyzephyr]

Malachi Wadas Perhaps there's a slight difference between something being calculable and something ever having the possibility of being calculated.

[@erufindlay3790]

Theoretically all the numbers are calculable because they have valid methods of getting a result, the only reason why we can't get the number is because in the physical universe the numbers are far bigger than anything in the universe.

[@messyzephyr]

***** Yup.

[@starrecipe9]

It's worse than just that. The universe is not stable enough to calculate these kinds of numbers. Expecting a machine to finish calculating the base-10 digital representation of Graham's number, even if it is supplied with endless energy and memory, would be like expecting a pencil balanced on its tip to stay standing on its tip for the duration of a trillion year hurricane. Our universe appears stable because it is relative to our lifespans, but on timescales of Graham's number of years our universe is an unstable fluttering mess of statistical fluctuations, in which even the most intuitively improbable events occur frequently.

[@mikikiki]

If I could list the digits of TREE(3) at 1000 digits a second, how long would it take me to recite it? Or if each number of TREE(3) was written in Planck length size font, how long would it be?

[@Peter_Schluss-Mit-Lustig]

Uncomprehensibly big

[@elindis]

It would take you so long that the universe would be reborn from random quantum fluctuations before you could finish it, even if you wrote 1000 digits per unit of planck time. If you wrote it, it would be so large that a graham's number of universes would hold a fraction so small that, if you had another graham's number of universes, you would not be able to write out the fraction in notation 1/(999...) within them. They are, in all senses, impossible to relate to physical reality.

[@denzi9297]

infinity 21

[@ayushkumarjha9921]

Even if you write a Graham's number (G64) of digits every G64th of a second for Graham's numbers of years and the repeat this process Graham's number time, you still not even come close to TREE(3) and this is a huge understatement.

[@mr.nihilist1069]

i knew about the MIT contest that resulted in rayo's number but i never saw the 'poster' and oh man thas quality advertising

[@Nautilus1972]

I thought it was like 234,546,345,768,899,000 ... and then I thought ... no ... damn ... what about 234,546,345,768,899,001 ... yeah ... that's it ... and then I thought ... no ... damn ... what about 234,546,345,768,899,002 ?... and then I thought ....

[@poor1809]

Seems though infinity is not technically a number, how about 'infinity' - 1 . That is the largest

[@Accidental238]

Even if you do infinity - 1 billion it's still going to be infinity.

[@larskarlsson6237]

How about = Infinity x.infinity of infinitys. It would make infinity go so fast, making infinity quicker than light... holy shit... its QUICKER THAN LIGHT

[@DoctorT144]

Infinity - 1 = Infinity. And Infinity isn't a number anyway, so any use of it in a formula doesn't count as a number either.

[@sneh9817]

Lars Karlsson Speed of light is finite you dumb ass

[@larskarlsson6237]

Sneh Suresh Do you even understand what im talking about?

[@kallek919]

The number exactly one integer bigger than any other number that has been named or is to be named in the infinity of all times and all spaces (and because of that it can have no name). It is useful because it has an important role to always state the largest number, and it is not arbitrary because it has a clear relation to the second largest number.

[@Peter_Schluss-Mit-Lustig]

And it's not a number because if x+1 doesnt exist then x is not a number and your system would require x=x+1 because all ever nameable numbers would be smaller

[@waynewalls5033]

Imagine you could fit the entire infinite universe in a full stop, and then placed a number so unimaginable, so vast, so far beyond human comprehension and experience, that if we were infinite beings with infinite capacity for memory, we still could not begin to grasp it, and we could fit that into a full stop, and placed another number, which truly dwarfs the previous unimaginable number by a truly incomprehensible magnitude...ad infinitum, we would still be finding numbers that made the previous numbers seem like dust on a pinhead in comparison...

[@andrewlyons2638]

infinity + infinity is not math... infinity is not a number that would be like saying fish plus fish = potato its gibberish...

[@starrecipe9]

When you learn a lot of mathematics you learn to think not only technically but also intuitively. There exists a pair of one-to-one functions F and G, from N to N, such that F(N) united with G(N) is equal to N, where N is the set of natural numbers. Furthermore the pair of functions F and G is unique if we require that F(x) = G(x) + 1, and that F is monotonic. So there's an example of one technical meaning behind the video description.

[@kaocsaephan]

starrecipe9 Bro, did you just use education on him? That's messed up, now he definitely ain't coming back with a response

[@nrxzionistlibertarian6168]

kaocsaephan It was just bullshit. Infinity is a concept and cannot be treated like a number. And if you did so, you could logically derive that 0 = 1 or some other bs.

[@starrecipe9]

Intuitively infinity + infinity = infinity. I think we can agree on that. You won't derive 0 = 1 if you're careful with your definitions. I'm looking at page 12 of Rudin's Principles of Mathematical Analysis, and this is what it says: "The extended real number system does not form a field, but it is customary to make the following conventions: (a) If x is real then x + infinity = infinity, x - infinity = -infinity, x/infinity = x/(-infinity) = 0..." You can also look under arithmetic operations on the Extended Real Number Line page on wikipedia. For something of a different nature there is also the surreal numbers which satisfy the usual properties of numbers while also including transfinite numbers.

[@vanessacherche6393]

libertarianDE Calling bs is not replacement for understanding. Just because you can't see logical conclusions, that doesn't mean logic must be wrong. I suspect you may need more practice with logic.

[@statiichydra1351]

If you have a hotel that is infinite, you start out with 32 people, then infinite people want to book a room their, then you just start at 33 and keep going it's not that complicated

[@calamorta]

But it doesn't start with 32 people. There's an infinity symbol in the top right corner.

[@calamorta]

The point of the paradox is to show how bs infinity is I guess. A hotel with 100 rooms could only have 100 guests. A hotel with infinite rooms could always add more guests because infinity+n equals infinity still. And if infinite amount of new guests appeared, the hotel could still have them because of their infinite rooms. The paradox comes when you go "oh, but all rooms were already taken!!! How can they receive more guests?" well, because infinity makes no sense. The issue is not trying to accommodate all the infinite new guests (as your comment implied), but trying to make sense of everything. If all rooms were already taken, why were we able to add more people? Well, because infinity makes no real world sense. The thing is that the hotel is never really full of guests because that would imply infinity minus infinity equals zero (aka no rooms available). But you can change all current guests to even number rooms, which would give you an infinite amount of empty odd number rooms, allowing you to receive all the new infinite guests. It's a perfect example of why you can't treat infinity normally.

[@vNoLimitMK]

Legend says he's still saying to the power of three

[@yotokil2914]

Bigger numbers than rayos number 1. Fish number 7 2. Oblivion 3. Bigfoot 4. Sasquatch 5. Little and Big Biggagedon 6. Utter Oblivion And the joke called Sams Number