The number of times electrons and protons rotated around the nucleous of every atom since the beginning of time, multiplied by 7 trillion, maybe that comes close to grahams number but idk, epic shit
7 trillion is not a large number? In the grand scale of infinity, perhaps it isn't, but that same fact is true for all real numbers. Seven trillion is very much a large number. In fact, it is so large that humans have a difficulty wrapping their tiny minds even around that.
@Weendigo172 7 trillion isn't even a drop in the bucket. Just raise it to itself once and you'll see what I mean. And since you can raise that result to the power of itself, well, the second number begins to look insignificant by comparison, and so on with each iteration.
By the only the 3rd iteration 7 trillion is so close to one in scale to the two subsequent values that it is essentially 1.
@skoockum While it's true that a trillion isn't even a drop in the bucket by comparison, it is still an insanely large number on its own merit. Think of it this way - How many singular things can you imagine? The ability of humans to imagine solid objects is great in detail but when you go above a certain number, it becomes hugely difficult. Nine objects in a three by three square is easy, and so is sixteen or perhaps even 25. But when you get to 36 and beyond, things start to go fuzzy.
@skoockum Hell, even imagining 100 single objects is starting to get actually difficult.(Or I don't know, maybe this is just me.) Remember, don't group these objects together. Imagine them all as single objects. Can you do 100? If so, I applaud your mental flexibility.
@skoockum But keep in mind, this is just a tenth, of a billionth of what a trillion objects is. A trillion dollars is still just one sum of money. If in a hypothetical scenario the trillion of one dollar notes stretched out before you in a row 1000 notes wide, it would still reach to the horizon and back. 15 times.
@Weendigo172 Being wowed by the vastness of 7 trillion is comparable to looking up at the Empire State building and being impressed with its size: sure, it's a lot bigger than you are, but it disappears when you step back to the moon and look at the earth. And if you look at size of the known universe, the building is so small as to be insignificant.
As the size of the known universe dwarfs an electron, so googol dwarfs 7 trillion. And Graham's number to googleplex.
@Weendigo172 As a matter of fact, 1 is as you put it, "an insanely large number on its own merit" when you compare it to 1/7 trillion. But it's even more insane when you compare it to 1/googol. You're prolly starting to see that "big" and "small" are relative terms (ie Big? Compared to what?)
Your body has roughly 7 trillion human cells and 70 trillion microbial cells. Every time you take a step to the west, you move 77 trillion cells one step to the west. 7 trillion? Big whoop.
@Weendigo172 Are you still impressed with 7 trillion?
One drop of water, one measly little drop of water, has 7 trillion water molecules in it --- 240 million time over.
As you sit there quietly typing away on your keyboard, with just one breath you inhale a number of air molecules that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion times bigger than 7 trillion.
No, 7 trillion just isn't all that big. When you think about it, it's really kind of puny.
I'd like to see the reasoning behind this number. Why is this number the limit to the problem Graham tried to solve? Since it is so incredibly incomprehensibly gargantuan, is it even a limit at all ..? :)
@Zjemptv Did I actually hear you say you thought infinity was large but you didn't realize it was that large!!!! IT IS NEVER ENDING DUDE, YOU DON'T GET LARGER THAN THAT. What else do you do but listen to yourself talk?
@LitZena Just a curious note - not all infinities are equally big... for example the infinity of real numbers (all decimals) is bigger that the infinity of natural numbers (1,2,3,4.. etc)
I am admittedly a bit drunk right now or I wouldn't bother to comment at all. But zinna I think you are brilliant but your voice bugs the shit out of me. I know this doesn't fall into the catagorey of usefull criticism but I simply felt commpelled to explain why I do not sub to your channel. But please do keep up the good work.
you list 3(up)(up)3 as being equal to 3(up)3(up)3 as being equal to 3^27, this is untrue. By the order of operations 3(up)3(up)3 is equal to 27^3 where (up) is the up arrow symbol. 3(up)(up)3 is actually equal to 3(up) [3(up)3] where square brackets indicate grouping. Please fix this admittedly minor error.
i find this all fascinating, but you sound like a soulless robot. enjoy the concept, but this narrator is a douche. your life must suck and you must have no compassion for your loved ones
Good vid. I could've used some more hand-holding with the up arrow notation, but that's just me. That Graham's number is finite, divisible by 3, and that the last 10 digits of it are 2464195387, are all facts I find oddly remarkable. I now have three questions to ask God when I die: 1) how were the pyramids built? 2) how did my idiot loser friend ever pull so much tail? and 3) what is the first digit of Graham's number?
@JimothyJimson I guess I misinterpreted your original reply. It's all good. I like to think all questions will be answered once on the other side. That they're not answered in the here and now I think makes our time here more meaningful.
@JimothyJimson That's refreshingly bleak. Maybe it's high time I launched my writing career, using that bleakness as a beginning motif. The ups and downs of life on earth, with an underpinning of smoldering nihilism, a demon that must be wrestled with, and with the wrestling, meaning is found. I like it. Maybe a bit trite at the moment, but I'll work on it.
If f(1) = the number of digits in 3^^^3, and f(2) is the number of digits in f(1), and f(3) is the number of digits in f(2), etc. then f(7,625,597,484,984) is a number small enough to write. :)
@rubikskidcube Well, I don't know about that. I haven't learned calculus yet, so I can't say I know much about infinity, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a mathematician who thinks that all numbers are equal to infinity.
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair yea i guess ur right but again its just a prediction! nice vid i was looking for how to calculate grahams number for like 4 months! for ur next vid can u tell us how to calculate pi? please respond and tell me ur answer
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair yea i guess ur right but again its just a prediction! nice vid i was looking for how to calculate grahams number for like 4 months! for ur next vid can u tell us how to calculate pi? please respond and tell me ur answer
I suppose that's one way of looking at infinity, but another way is to consider that infinity is a concept of something with no boundaries, something literally in-finite. Even if you can't quantify infinity, it stands to reason that infinity, being boundless, is a concept more expansive than any finite number. Contemplating Graham's number puts infinity's boundlessness into perspective.
Absolutely. That's the mind-blowing aspect of mathematics - whatever number you can conceive of, there is always a number that is at least 1 larger. Numbers simply don't stop. Of course, a number like g5000 would be so large that even a parallel, alternate universe besides this one probably wouldn't be large enough for any sentient being to write it in customary notation. I could be wrong, of course. Who knows how large other universes, if they exist, might be?
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair if you want to imagine infinite its helpful to think of infinite as a infinite power source not as an infinite image its much more easy to see it that way than to think of and image that goes on for ever and also any number may be equal to infinite i think about it this way infinite keeps goning on in a constatant motion not all the numbers at once so you can conclude any number is equal to infinite respond if u think this is right please
Grayhams number wasn't designed to find infinity, it was all to do with hypercubes /tesseract. Grayhams number is a taste of the infinite as nobody can know infinity... Especially those monkeys with typewriters.
Isnt it easier to wrap your head around the concept of infinity than it is grahams number? Infinity is just something without an end or a beginning, or its what happens im maths if you divide by zero. Comprehending grahams number, which is just a very big number, doesnt help you to comprehend infinity - its a totally dierent concept
@JasonMakesMontages It's the upper limit on the number of dimensions of a hypercube that satisfies a particular property (which has to do with colouring.)
Consider an n dimensional hypercube. Connect the vertices to obtain a graph of 2^n vertices. Colour the edges of the graph using two colours. What is the smallest value of n such that, for every possible colouring, there exists a single coloured complete subgraph with four vertices that lie on a plane.
HH(n) = the function H(n) enclosed into itself H(n) times ( H(H(n)) is H(n) enclosed into itself TWO times)
HHH(n) = the function HH(n) enclsosed into itself HH(n) times.
H_x(y) = a short cut for writing out x H's in a row.
Then something as simple as HH(5) is far larger then Graham's number! I've read all the comments and so far the only faster way to build up then this is to call infinity, or a certain type of infinity.
@Nicolea9000 I invented a number myself MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger then g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(354805384609846084684769874)))))))))))))))))) I'll message you it...
The odds of throwing a thousand dice and landing them all the same is about 1 in 236 duocenoctoquinquagintillion, so try to imagine that but you can't imagine how big a Graham's number is NO MATTER WHAT
Graham's number is a specific number that marks the upper bound of a particular math problem.
It's sort of like saying "Easter will next occur on a date somewhere from March 22 to April 25" . In this case, April 25th is the highest possible value for this problem.
Graham's number is the upper limit on a particular problem in math, and is remarkable mostly because it is one of the highest numbers to ever be defined (it was defined as part of trying to solve that problem).
Graham's number really is mind-boggling - just as is simply looking at pictures taken by NASA and imagining the amount of stars, planets, galaxies and solar systems in the universe. The scale of the universe probably boggles the mind of even the most knowledgable scientist, making it SEEM infinite to the human mind.
@PoliMeim - I guess I did, didn't even realize it until you mentioned it. I think people have calculated more than the last number though, I remembered seeing something like the last 500 numbers. That is such a low percent of the number that it itself is virtually incalcuable.
The scary thing about this is, Graham's number is no closer to infinity than 1. The separation between graham's number and 1 looks like nothing when you are talking about infinity.
@kwith you got that from the interview with ron graham which is quite interesting...Graham knows that the last digit is infact 7, so G+1's last digit is 8!
The concept of infinity is a bit terrifying. But it's so fascinating. Very large and very small numbers have always interested me. I remember getting so excited seeing numbers like 10^23 and 10^-23 in my math class; while my classmates and friends slept through it tried to write out the numbers for a googolplex. Seeing Graham's Number just blows my mind, and makes the numbers that excited me in the first place,look like something smaller than a sub atomic particle.
This video is pretty awesome, but I'm laughing my ass off at how sincere and intense he sounds. I remember when I looked up Graham's number, though. :) Spent a good part of an evening trying to understand the number (this video does an excellent job at explaining it efficiently, unlike Wikipedia, which I was using) and felt the same as what the guy in the video sounds like.
but i have to say, it would be easy to make a larger number. (i dont mean just saying 4 instead of 3). what if you had a number operation, that showed the repitition of the arrow symbol. Then you could repeat that in a simliar fashion and create some that would make grahams number look small. However, the theory is there obvious just to describe almost impossible size, and it has achieved that. Great video
For a high-school drop out you're very well educated. My dad used to skip school, so even though he's very smart he's hard of learning, but you are not. That's unusal for my experience.
Or wait... looking at Graham's number it seems obvious nobody has to undergo eternal hell punishment for sins. But does it mean there is no such punishment? According to Christianity Jesus underwent this punishment Himself, that's why believers are free of that. Actually everybody's free now. It turns out Jesus is much more. This good old fellow, Christianity, shouldn't be underestimated, it still hides something for this world.
And still Graham's number is infinitely smaller than infinity. The one who tried to grasp Graham's number and still believes in eternal hell should be insane. I don't assume there's not gonna be punishment for every single sin but to believe that whatever sin is worth eternal hell punishment is ridiculous.
that g1-g64 sequence that forms Graham's number is really unbelievable. Cause it's simply horrifying how EVERY SINGLE arrow enlarges a number. Every single arrow adds like additional dimension, every time making a previous number against a new one as minute as zero and still this difference grows with unbelievable pace. And yet the plain number of arrows in G64 equals to the number of g63. Mind = fully blown.
Mathematicians sometimes say "Infinity is not a number." Georg Cantor confronted infinity and gave us some profound insights, but paid a steep price. The strangeness of infinity is illustrated by the fact that one infinite set (for example, natural numbers) can be a subset of another infinite set (for example, rational numbers), yet they are the same size. This leads to truly bizarre situations such as Hilbert's famous Grand Hotel.
My calc 3 teacher once said that the grader was infinitely fast. I nearly spit in his face.
skoockum 5 days ago
Graham's number is precisely as far away from infinity as is the number one. Interesting video, it just has nothing to do with infinity.
axion419 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@axion419 "Interesting video, it just has nothing to do with infinity. "
Not directly, but it certainly adds a mind numbing perspective to how we imagine very large values and infinity.
skoockum 5 days ago
The number of times electrons and protons rotated around the nucleous of every atom since the beginning of time, multiplied by 7 trillion, maybe that comes close to grahams number but idk, epic shit
421chris 3 weeks ago
7 trillion is not a large number? In the grand scale of infinity, perhaps it isn't, but that same fact is true for all real numbers. Seven trillion is very much a large number. In fact, it is so large that humans have a difficulty wrapping their tiny minds even around that.
Weendigo172 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from ZJemptv
@Weendigo172 7 trillion isn't even a drop in the bucket. Just raise it to itself once and you'll see what I mean. And since you can raise that result to the power of itself, well, the second number begins to look insignificant by comparison, and so on with each iteration.
By the only the 3rd iteration 7 trillion is so close to one in scale to the two subsequent values that it is essentially 1.
skoockum 5 days ago
@skoockum While it's true that a trillion isn't even a drop in the bucket by comparison, it is still an insanely large number on its own merit. Think of it this way - How many singular things can you imagine? The ability of humans to imagine solid objects is great in detail but when you go above a certain number, it becomes hugely difficult. Nine objects in a three by three square is easy, and so is sixteen or perhaps even 25. But when you get to 36 and beyond, things start to go fuzzy.
Weendigo172 4 days ago
@skoockum Hell, even imagining 100 single objects is starting to get actually difficult.(Or I don't know, maybe this is just me.) Remember, don't group these objects together. Imagine them all as single objects. Can you do 100? If so, I applaud your mental flexibility.
Weendigo172 4 days ago
@skoockum But keep in mind, this is just a tenth, of a billionth of what a trillion objects is. A trillion dollars is still just one sum of money. If in a hypothetical scenario the trillion of one dollar notes stretched out before you in a row 1000 notes wide, it would still reach to the horizon and back. 15 times.
Weendigo172 4 days ago
@Weendigo172 Being wowed by the vastness of 7 trillion is comparable to looking up at the Empire State building and being impressed with its size: sure, it's a lot bigger than you are, but it disappears when you step back to the moon and look at the earth. And if you look at size of the known universe, the building is so small as to be insignificant.
As the size of the known universe dwarfs an electron, so googol dwarfs 7 trillion. And Graham's number to googleplex.
skoockum 4 days ago
@Weendigo172 As a matter of fact, 1 is as you put it, "an insanely large number on its own merit" when you compare it to 1/7 trillion. But it's even more insane when you compare it to 1/googol. You're prolly starting to see that "big" and "small" are relative terms (ie Big? Compared to what?)
Your body has roughly 7 trillion human cells and 70 trillion microbial cells. Every time you take a step to the west, you move 77 trillion cells one step to the west. 7 trillion? Big whoop.
skoockum 4 days ago
@Weendigo172 Are you still impressed with 7 trillion?
One drop of water, one measly little drop of water, has 7 trillion water molecules in it --- 240 million time over.
As you sit there quietly typing away on your keyboard, with just one breath you inhale a number of air molecules that is somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 billion times bigger than 7 trillion.
No, 7 trillion just isn't all that big. When you think about it, it's really kind of puny.
skoockum 4 days ago
I heard of a number that makes grahams number look small: It's called meameamealokkapoowa oompa (I'm not joking)
Miss6Nintendo 1 month ago
all well and good, but Graham's number still has nothing whatsoever to do with infinity.
BungTheForeman2 1 month ago
I have now watched this video a few times over the past two years, and each time it leaves me gob-smacked. G blows your mind
Cheers
ekhaat 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
I'm still not understanding the upside down bracket.
and whats the obsession with the number 3 ?
JustinFromSydney 1 month ago
Can somebody explain to how the fuck this was used in a mathematical proof?
J0tunhe1m 1 month ago
I'd like to see the reasoning behind this number. Why is this number the limit to the problem Graham tried to solve? Since it is so incredibly incomprehensibly gargantuan, is it even a limit at all ..? :)
andersodenkvist 2 months ago
Y SO SERIOUS?!
IcyAffinity 2 months ago
Is this the FBI dude with revolver from Criminal Minds talking?
mrdanjel 2 months ago
7,625 = 7 + 6 + 2 + 5 = 20 = 2 + 0 = 2. EVERYTHING REDUCES TO A LIMITED VALUE BETWEEN 1-9. I HAVE COMPREHENDED INFINITY.
debit256 2 months ago
So is this like pi?
Saitothesushi 2 months ago
In Summary, Infinity Is Big
Spooneads 2 months ago 2
They say there's not enough room in the universe to write Graham's Number. The number itself that is, not the name of it.
Xanatos712 2 months ago
my brain exploded.
DarkraiRocks494 3 months ago
Shut up meg
WariBanaArt 3 months ago in playlist More videos from ZJemptv
@Zjemptv Did I actually hear you say you thought infinity was large but you didn't realize it was that large!!!! IT IS NEVER ENDING DUDE, YOU DON'T GET LARGER THAN THAT. What else do you do but listen to yourself talk?
LitZena 3 months ago
@LitZena Just a curious note - not all infinities are equally big... for example the infinity of real numbers (all decimals) is bigger that the infinity of natural numbers (1,2,3,4.. etc)
mediteight 2 months ago
@Zjemptv It is just as easy to use infinity as it is to use your complex exponents. Do you ever bore yourself?
LitZena 3 months ago
quite fun that ghrams numbers are not even close to infinity...
PhrozenTiger 3 months ago
gThousillion
Spooneads 3 months ago
Thumbs up if this is the first thing that told you about what grahams number is!
Spooneads 3 months ago 22
This is far larger than Graham's number.
9 → 9 → (9 → 9 → 99→8)→8> X > 9 → 9 → (9 → 9 → 98→8)→8
Graham's number (3 → 3 → 64→2 < G < 3 → 3 → 65→2)
woden198 3 months ago
Then...why don't you make it 9 to the power of 9 trillion and so on and so forth?
TimTehPilot 3 months ago
numbers never end so thats infinite?
MrBankloot 3 months ago
Now wrap your mind around this: A Grahams Number to the power of a Graham's number Graham's Number of times.
MrKasey361 4 months ago
I am admittedly a bit drunk right now or I wouldn't bother to comment at all. But zinna I think you are brilliant but your voice bugs the shit out of me. I know this doesn't fall into the catagorey of usefull criticism but I simply felt commpelled to explain why I do not sub to your channel. But please do keep up the good work.
dsdougharty 4 months ago
thank you, that's a really clear explanation to understand Graham's number.
seraphlgabri 4 months ago
This is really one of the greatest things I ever found on Youtube and I have seen maybe 50k videos. Taste of infinity is one mind blowing experience.
OriginalMindTrick 4 months ago
To the maker of this video:
you list 3(up)(up)3 as being equal to 3(up)3(up)3 as being equal to 3^27, this is untrue. By the order of operations 3(up)3(up)3 is equal to 27^3 where (up) is the up arrow symbol. 3(up)(up)3 is actually equal to 3(up) [3(up)3] where square brackets indicate grouping. Please fix this admittedly minor error.
Overlord484 4 months ago
@Overlord484 Actually, exponentiation is right-associative, meaning it is carried out from right to left.
ZJemptv 4 months ago 13
@ZJemptv I'll be damned, wikipedia agrees with you. I've never heard that before. YAY LEARNING!
Overlord484 4 months ago
what about...4 (triple arrow) 4...O...M...G
felixx2012 4 months ago
@felixx2012 wait, i didnt watch the next bit haha, ITS CRAZY
felixx2012 4 months ago
This gay faggot
Smitty6123 5 months ago
i find this all fascinating, but you sound like a soulless robot. enjoy the concept, but this narrator is a douche. your life must suck and you must have no compassion for your loved ones
saraandjerry5 5 months ago
@saraandjerry5 WTH?!? He is talking about mathematics, not love, or relationships, what do you expect?
loveofphysics 5 months ago
i find this all fascinating, but you sound like a soulless robot.
saraandjerry5 5 months ago
Numbers aren't real.
bayheadmedia 5 months ago
@bayheadmedia So?
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@SoldierofYAH ....are you fucking retarded?
stover1102 5 months ago 2
@stover1102 Yes.
anticorncob6 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Now do it with 4s.
andysido 5 months ago
Now imagine 10 to the power of Graham's number. A 1 followed by a Graham's number of zeros.
Jason86400 5 months ago
@Jason86400 That's nowhere near G65. And a one with G65 zeros is not remotely close to G66.
anticorncob6 5 months ago
@anticorncob6
Then imagine GGraham's number.
That number dwarfs Graham's number so much I can't imagine it's possible for anything in mathematics to use it.
OriginalMindTrick 4 months ago
@Jason86400 Imagine Graham's number to the power of Graham's number and that answer to the power of a thousand times graham's number.
jkadvices 5 months ago
@Jason86400 *head explodes*
TheElectricDreamer93 5 months ago
Good vid. I could've used some more hand-holding with the up arrow notation, but that's just me. That Graham's number is finite, divisible by 3, and that the last 10 digits of it are 2464195387, are all facts I find oddly remarkable. I now have three questions to ask God when I die: 1) how were the pyramids built? 2) how did my idiot loser friend ever pull so much tail? and 3) what is the first digit of Graham's number?
coolbreeze922 5 months ago
@coolbreeze922 you should also ask what the hell your going to do with your infinity in heaven
JimothyJimson 5 months ago
@JimothyJimson I have no need for "my" infinity here on earth, I doubt I would need it in heaven.
coolbreeze922 5 months ago
@coolbreeze922 i don't know what you're trying to say here sorry. I meant the infinite amount of time you have to spend in heaven.
JimothyJimson 5 months ago
@JimothyJimson I guess I misinterpreted your original reply. It's all good. I like to think all questions will be answered once on the other side. That they're not answered in the here and now I think makes our time here more meaningful.
coolbreeze922 5 months ago
@coolbreeze922 i personnaly think that i will rot in the ground, which does make our time here more meaningful
JimothyJimson 5 months ago
@JimothyJimson That's refreshingly bleak. Maybe it's high time I launched my writing career, using that bleakness as a beginning motif. The ups and downs of life on earth, with an underpinning of smoldering nihilism, a demon that must be wrestled with, and with the wrestling, meaning is found. I like it. Maybe a bit trite at the moment, but I'll work on it.
coolbreeze922 5 months ago
@coolbreeze922 MY questions to ask to a being that knows everything:
1) What is the first TEN digits of Graham's number?
2) Is there an odd perfect number? And if yes, what is it?
3) Can you show me a 4-dimensional space and what it looks like?
anticorncob6 5 months ago
excellent video
AJatheistgod 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If f(1) = the number of digits in 3^^^3, and f(2) is the number of digits in f(1), and f(3) is the number of digits in f(2), etc. then f(7,625,597,484,984) is a number small enough to write. :)
anticorncob6 6 months ago
@rubikskidcube Well, I don't know about that. I haven't learned calculus yet, so I can't say I know much about infinity, but you'd be hard-pressed to find a mathematician who thinks that all numbers are equal to infinity.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 6 months ago
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair yea i guess ur right but again its just a prediction! nice vid i was looking for how to calculate grahams number for like 4 months! for ur next vid can u tell us how to calculate pi? please respond and tell me ur answer
rubikskidcube 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair yea i guess ur right but again its just a prediction! nice vid i was looking for how to calculate grahams number for like 4 months! for ur next vid can u tell us how to calculate pi? please respond and tell me ur answer
rubikskidcube 6 months ago
my dick is large as grahams number. :D
MrJaysChannel 6 months ago
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 4 ever!
KanyeWestTheGayFish 6 months ago
@JPlayer253
I suppose that's one way of looking at infinity, but another way is to consider that infinity is a concept of something with no boundaries, something literally in-finite. Even if you can't quantify infinity, it stands to reason that infinity, being boundless, is a concept more expansive than any finite number. Contemplating Graham's number puts infinity's boundlessness into perspective.
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 6 months ago
@rubikskidcube
Absolutely. That's the mind-blowing aspect of mathematics - whatever number you can conceive of, there is always a number that is at least 1 larger. Numbers simply don't stop. Of course, a number like g5000 would be so large that even a parallel, alternate universe besides this one probably wouldn't be large enough for any sentient being to write it in customary notation. I could be wrong, of course. Who knows how large other universes, if they exist, might be?
ThatGuyWithHippyHair 6 months ago 2
@ThatGuyWithHippyHair if you want to imagine infinite its helpful to think of infinite as a infinite power source not as an infinite image its much more easy to see it that way than to think of and image that goes on for ever and also any number may be equal to infinite i think about it this way infinite keeps goning on in a constatant motion not all the numbers at once so you can conclude any number is equal to infinite respond if u think this is right please
rubikskidcube 6 months ago
can u make a bigger number than g64 like g5000? or g g64? just asking please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! respond!
rubikskidcube 6 months ago
pi+Grayhams number = 3
darwiniantheory 6 months ago
Grayhams number wasn't designed to find infinity, it was all to do with hypercubes /tesseract. Grayhams number is a taste of the infinite as nobody can know infinity... Especially those monkeys with typewriters.
darwiniantheory 6 months ago
Hey can anybody solve my maths problem for me?
Q: What is Pi + Graham's number?
A: Errr.... o_O
skyndileg 6 months ago
The scary aspect is that Grahams number isn't even close to infinity.
Just a big number.
OriginalMindTrick 6 months ago
Isnt it easier to wrap your head around the concept of infinity than it is grahams number? Infinity is just something without an end or a beginning, or its what happens im maths if you divide by zero. Comprehending grahams number, which is just a very big number, doesnt help you to comprehend infinity - its a totally dierent concept
JPlayer253 6 months ago
3^7,625,597,484,987 is an integer with 3,638,334,640,025 digits.
anticorncob6 6 months ago
How the fuck was this used in a mathematical proof?
JasonMakesMontages 7 months ago
@JasonMakesMontages well why not? :)
TheAppIeseed 7 months ago
@JasonMakesMontages It's the upper limit on the number of dimensions of a hypercube that satisfies a particular property (which has to do with colouring.)
Consider an n dimensional hypercube. Connect the vertices to obtain a graph of 2^n vertices. Colour the edges of the graph using two colours. What is the smallest value of n such that, for every possible colouring, there exists a single coloured complete subgraph with four vertices that lie on a plane.
Or something like that...
deadeaded 6 months ago 2
@JasonMakesMontages Something about the number or vertices on a hypercube.
Raflegan 3 months ago
Imagine
H(n) = n^^...n where there are n arrows.
HH(n) = the function H(n) enclosed into itself H(n) times ( H(H(n)) is H(n) enclosed into itself TWO times)
HHH(n) = the function HH(n) enclsosed into itself HH(n) times.
H_x(y) = a short cut for writing out x H's in a row.
Then something as simple as HH(5) is far larger then Graham's number! I've read all the comments and so far the only faster way to build up then this is to call infinity, or a certain type of infinity.
anticorncob6 7 months ago
grahams number is tiny. graham is a cunt.
eronl 7 months ago
Why stop at g64? why not Ggrahams number, and replace 3 with grahams number, that number would make grahams number look infinitesimally small
so it would look like (G64(Ggrahams number)g64)) that would be like a grahams number of universes worth of planck lengths
Nicolea9000 7 months ago
@Nicolea9000 I invented a number myself MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger then g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(g(354805384609846084684769874)))))))))))))))))) I'll message you it...
anticorncob6 7 months ago
@anticorncob6 you can't just invent numbers fool, Graham's number is awesome because Graham used it in a proof
Hendurik 6 months ago
@Hendurik Moser's number is famous, and it wasn't used in a proof.
anticorncob6 6 months ago
The odds of throwing a thousand dice and landing them all the same is about 1 in 236 duocenoctoquinquagintillion, so try to imagine that but you can't imagine how big a Graham's number is NO MATTER WHAT
anticorncob6 7 months ago
This video gave me infinite education of Graham's number...
Wait. Did I learn ANYTHING about infinity?
TheCeejReturns 7 months ago
wow i thought infinity was large but i had no comprenhesion of it I cant even wrap my mind around 3 triple arrow 3
mgcgyugitradeco 7 months ago
Grahams's number is insignificant compared to infinity. It wouldn't even be the warm up to the to the meeting about the dress rehearsal of infinity.
happyidiottalk 7 months ago
Graham's number + 1. Now that's mind blowing.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
KanyeWestTheGayFish 7 months ago 10
@KanyeWestTheGayFish not LOLOL, but TROLOLOL
YINGAI1995 4 months ago
Comment removed
anticorncob6 7 months ago
The last 450 numbers of G/s number are:
14300354012602677162267216041981065226316935518878
03881448314065252616878509555264605107117200099709
29124954437888749606288291172506300130362293491608
02545946149457887142783235082924210209182589675356
04308699380168924988926809951016905591995119502788
71783083701834023647454888222216157322801013297450
92734459450434330090109692802535275183328988446150
89404248265018193851562535796399618993967905496638
003222348723967018485186439059104575627262464195387
dylanm36 8 months ago 5
I would like to announce the RustyCyler Number. G65 baby !! Oh yeah, suck it Graham !
RustyCyler 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does it stop at g64? Why not gG or gg64?
TamaNewb 8 months ago
Why does it stop at g64? Why not gG?
TamaNewb 8 months ago
@TamaNewb AHHHHHHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
pimpmyshoppingcart 8 months ago
@TamaNewb
Graham's number is a specific number that marks the upper bound of a particular math problem.
It's sort of like saying "Easter will next occur on a date somewhere from March 22 to April 25" . In this case, April 25th is the highest possible value for this problem.
Graham's number is the upper limit on a particular problem in math, and is remarkable mostly because it is one of the highest numbers to ever be defined (it was defined as part of trying to solve that problem).
joquarky 8 months ago
@joquarky I thought it was the lower bound, not the upper bound: e.g. "the smallest value of n"
Raflegan 3 months ago
Are you Sheldon's Girlfriend? from the Big Bang Theory?
DKNYZERO 8 months ago 3
the narrator's voice is infinitely annoying
lvlarky 8 months ago
Graham's number really is mind-boggling - just as is simply looking at pictures taken by NASA and imagining the amount of stars, planets, galaxies and solar systems in the universe. The scale of the universe probably boggles the mind of even the most knowledgable scientist, making it SEEM infinite to the human mind.
BlueZephyrTG 8 months ago
Graham's number + 1= I win
superstarwarsfan99 8 months ago
@PoliMeim - I guess I did, didn't even realize it until you mentioned it. I think people have calculated more than the last number though, I remembered seeing something like the last 500 numbers. That is such a low percent of the number that it itself is virtually incalcuable.
kwith 8 months ago
I've got a number MUCH bigger then Graham's number a graham's number arrows graham's number.
anticorncob6 8 months ago
@anticorncob6
Use it in a proof and we'll name it after you. : P
FlailingJunk 8 months ago
Comment removed
anticorncob6 8 months ago
@anticorncob6 O.o
PoliMeim 8 months ago
ever heard of being concise? holy moly the boringness is overwhelming
jstock2317 8 months ago
The scary thing about this is, Graham's number is no closer to infinity than 1. The separation between graham's number and 1 looks like nothing when you are talking about infinity.
kwith 8 months ago 3
@kwith you got that from the interview with ron graham which is quite interesting...Graham knows that the last digit is infact 7, so G+1's last digit is 8!
PoliMeim 8 months ago
grahams number + 1, i win
thecity0nfilm 9 months ago
Very nice presentation.
aborne 9 months ago 2
5:55 is where my head explodes.
skepticJames 9 months ago 2
how about graham's number triple arrow graham's number
chandlerblancaflor 9 months ago 3
infinity = the end's new beginning.
1800levso 10 months ago
Okay, drinking game!
1 shot every time he says 3, 1 shot every time he says arrow.
If you don't die of alcohol poisoning, you win!
Petrify666 10 months ago 22
my penis=Graham's number in inches...
daryle02 10 months ago
@daryle02 thats actually a bad thing. just saying
saradomin89898 9 months ago
The concept of infinity is a bit terrifying. But it's so fascinating. Very large and very small numbers have always interested me. I remember getting so excited seeing numbers like 10^23 and 10^-23 in my math class; while my classmates and friends slept through it tried to write out the numbers for a googolplex. Seeing Graham's Number just blows my mind, and makes the numbers that excited me in the first place,look like something smaller than a sub atomic particle.
TheElectricDreamer93 10 months ago 3
Standing between two mirrors yields an observable Infinite Recursive.
LuminOfMoonlight 10 months ago
18 people didnt understand grahams number
sinaminanossi 10 months ago 3
It's amazing how much faster these numbers increase than familiar numbers. For instance, 2^^2 = 16, but 3^^3 is already 7.6 trillion....
Ledwix 11 months ago
Oops, I think I screwed up 2^^2. Never mind.
Ledwix 10 months ago 2
my friends and i use it for no take-backsies for forever and infinity
klkigar 11 months ago
This video is pretty awesome, but I'm laughing my ass off at how sincere and intense he sounds. I remember when I looked up Graham's number, though. :) Spent a good part of an evening trying to understand the number (this video does an excellent job at explaining it efficiently, unlike Wikipedia, which I was using) and felt the same as what the guy in the video sounds like.
Bobstew68 11 months ago
To the person who posted 2↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑....↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑2, you do realize that the answer is 4, no matter how many arrows you stick in there.
2 + 2 = 4
2 x 2 = 4
2 ^ 2 = 4
2 ↑↑ 2 = 4
etc.
TheOiseau 11 months ago
@TheOiseau
2 ↑↑ 2 = 2 ^(2^2) = 2^(4) = 16
FlailingJunk 11 months ago
@FlailingJunk No.
2^^2 = 2^2 = 4
You took 2 to the power of itself THREE times (2^(2^2) has three 2's in it) and the real answer is 4.
anticorncob6 8 months ago
@anticorncob6
Indeed. I stand corrected.
FlailingJunk 8 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
The more you know the more you know you have yet to learn, i feel empty now.
zoo1619 11 months ago
but i have to say, it would be easy to make a larger number. (i dont mean just saying 4 instead of 3). what if you had a number operation, that showed the repitition of the arrow symbol. Then you could repeat that in a simliar fashion and create some that would make grahams number look small. However, the theory is there obvious just to describe almost impossible size, and it has achieved that. Great video
SoulSearcher4 11 months ago
thank you for showing me this.
I feel more intelligent.
This is freakin GENIUS!
SoulSearcher4 11 months ago
By the time I finish counting the Infinity I'm already reach in the state of Nivarna
Ancaryvan 1 year ago
Drat: my brain evolved to deal with a small number of medium sized objects moving at medium speeds.
bikeridingpinko 1 year ago 3
Loved the video very educational !!!!!! That mind fuck was worse than inception my head hurts but in a good way :D
TheCuteRebel 1 year ago
For a high-school drop out you're very well educated. My dad used to skip school, so even though he's very smart he's hard of learning, but you are not. That's unusal for my experience.
Bannedforfun 1 year ago
Or wait... looking at Graham's number it seems obvious nobody has to undergo eternal hell punishment for sins. But does it mean there is no such punishment? According to Christianity Jesus underwent this punishment Himself, that's why believers are free of that. Actually everybody's free now. It turns out Jesus is much more. This good old fellow, Christianity, shouldn't be underestimated, it still hides something for this world.
oddictive 1 year ago
And still Graham's number is infinitely smaller than infinity. The one who tried to grasp Graham's number and still believes in eternal hell should be insane. I don't assume there's not gonna be punishment for every single sin but to believe that whatever sin is worth eternal hell punishment is ridiculous.
oddictive 1 year ago
that g1-g64 sequence that forms Graham's number is really unbelievable. Cause it's simply horrifying how EVERY SINGLE arrow enlarges a number. Every single arrow adds like additional dimension, every time making a previous number against a new one as minute as zero and still this difference grows with unbelievable pace. And yet the plain number of arrows in G64 equals to the number of g63. Mind = fully blown.
oddictive 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑2
sofiasmartis 1 year ago
Comment removed
UploaderA 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Grahams number is chuck norris's phone number
UploaderA 1 year ago 45
@UploaderA Good one!!
J0EH3AD 9 months ago
Boogie maths
duVq7cXWcYw
Daghead 1 year ago
WAIT! THAT VIDEO IS FAKE
The Truth is:
G2 = 3►◄▲ {●_●} 8.453.654.235.564.754,890
so...
G1 and Graham sucks
LNT604 1 year ago
@LNT604 Twat.
jamesislush1 1 year ago
HOLY F**KING SHIT
dsass600 1 year ago
Fuck Graham lol
Wiseguyzmoney 1 year ago
counted to infinity, Ohh wait! Still counting!!!
W0lfster 1 year ago
ive counted BEYOND INFINITY!
W0lfster 1 year ago
I just finished counting up to Graham's number ...
djbanizza 1 year ago 24
Is there any reason why Graham stopped at g64?
FibonaziProductions 1 year ago
@FibonaziProductions Because even Chuck Norris can't understand that.
ColemanLJ 1 year ago
@ColemanLJ - Chuck Norris is a naïf. Chuck Norris facts are fun though.
FibonaziProductions 1 year ago
Comment removed
Shitspawn 1 year ago
@FibonaziProductions I know that was 5 months ago and you might not remember, but I'm still gonna answer.
I notice that 64 = 2^6. I think it has to do something with it.
anticorncob6 8 months ago
@anticorncob6 - Well, no, I didn't, but I'm blessed with the Ctrl+F function, so it's not hard to find my original comment :). Thank you.
FibonaziProductions 8 months ago
d( O -, O )b
Alicethewise 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I will stop at nothing to avoid using negative numbers.
jamesislush1 1 year ago
Really? I'll be damned then. Beyond the observable space of what Hubble's ultimate view. Beyond that?
balloydspiritsoul 1 year ago
Excellent explanation of arrow notation, better than any I've seen
AllHailZeppelin 1 year ago
My number is number of any opposing viewer times Graham's number. LOL!
Kidding. What if we measure the edge of the void space to the opposite edge of the space by nanometer.
balloydspiritsoul 1 year ago
@balloydspiritsoul That would only make about 10^35 to 10^36 nanometers. Pathetically small.
759009946576 1 year ago
The starting digits of 3^3^3^3 are 125801429062749131786039069820328....
759009946576 1 year ago
my number is bigger than yours :P
KarinMikazuki 1 year ago 2
@KarinMikazuki Any number my opponent cites + 1. I win.
759009946576 1 year ago
Mathematicians sometimes say "Infinity is not a number." Georg Cantor confronted infinity and gave us some profound insights, but paid a steep price. The strangeness of infinity is illustrated by the fact that one infinite set (for example, natural numbers) can be a subset of another infinite set (for example, rational numbers), yet they are the same size. This leads to truly bizarre situations such as Hilbert's famous Grand Hotel.
maplebayou1 1 year ago