Graham's Number

[Succubus]

Stop it! This is all to much for my fragile little mind. I was going to hoover the stairs today but fuckit, I'll hit the drink instead.

[GrandizerII]

Stop it! This is all to much for my fragile little mind. I was going to hoover the stairs today but fuckit, I'll hit the drink instead.

There should be a name in future DSM books for what we're suffering from when we conceive of such numbers, and figure out what treatments would be effective for people like us. Nobody deserves to go through all this pain and suffering just because of a number.

[polymath257]

And yet, these numbers are all *finite*.

BTW, read 'observable universe' in place of 'universe above'.

[GrandizerII]

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).

[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

---

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

[GrandizerII]

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

---

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

TREE(3) of them? Explosion galore!!!

Whats just as crazy is that TREE(2) is just 3, but then add one level and its GHDHFNJFNVNVDHHXHXXJXJXBFHFBDJDJJDHDHFHDJDJXHHXHHDHXJXJCHCHCJCJCJCJCJCJXJJXHXHXHZBDBDBDBHSJJSJSJDFC