RE: Graham's Number
February 18, 2018 at 11:18 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2018 at 12:16 pm by polymath257.)
I just found this link. It has a fairly good, but technical description and characterization of large numbers. TREE(3) is not described (at least not from what I skimmed).
http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html
And, just to blow your mind further, look at the SSCG function.
SSCG(3) is *much* larger than TREE(TREE(TREE(.....TREE(3)...))) where the number of appearances of TREE is TREE(3).
And it comes up in actual mathematics!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman%2...G_function
And for more discussion:
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Googology_Wiki
http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html
(February 18, 2018 at 10:04 am)Grandizer Wrote:(February 15, 2018 at 9:49 am)polymath257 Wrote: I was thinking about numbers like this on the other thread.
Another one, even larger than Graham's number, it TREE(3).
See
https://joshkerr.com/tree-3-is-a-big-num...390da86d93
Another link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%27s_tree_theorem
So I finally got around to reading the first link, and HOLY FUCK! I didn't even know how badly Graham's number paled in comparison to Tree(3). Tree(3) is to Graham's Number as Graham's Number is to any number that we can conceive of without going insanity to the googolthe power! It's FUCKING HUGE, WAY WAY WAY WAY HUGER THAN GRAHAMS NUMBER!!!!!! It's "makes me want to commit suicide" HUGE (joking, joking, but it almost makes me feel this way).
And, just to blow your mind further, look at the SSCG function.
SSCG(3) is *much* larger than TREE(TREE(TREE(.....TREE(3)...))) where the number of appearances of TREE is TREE(3).
And it comes up in actual mathematics!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman%2...G_function
And for more discussion:
http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Googology_Wiki
