Current Events > CE mathematicians, is this a good way of describing the size of Graham's number?

Topic List	Page List: 1
Josiah_Is_Back 12/29/19 4:11:56 PM #1:	I was perusing a mathematics message board and some users were attempting to explain how unimaginably monstrous Graham's number really is. One of them posted something like this: Take all of the Planck volumes in our observable universe and turn each of them into an identical universe. Then take all of the Planck volumes in all those universes and turn them into identical universes, as well. Repeat this a googolplex times and you're still not even close to Graham's number. Because if that's true it's amazing. <cite>Josiah_Is_Back posted [p:932204511] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>I was perusing a mathematics message board and some users were attempting to explain how unimaginably monstrous Graham's number really is. One of them posted something like this: Take all of the Planck volumes in our observable universe and turn each of them into an identical universe. Then take all of the Planck volumes in all those universes and turn them into identical universes, as well. Repeat this a googolplex times and you're still not even close to Graham's number. Because if that's true it's amazing. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MedeaLysistrata 12/29/19 4:13:08 PM #2:	What sense does extension correspond to? --- "Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH [Is this live?][Joyless planet...] <cite>MedeaLysistrata posted [p:932204560] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>What sense does extension correspond to? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Josiah_Is_Back 12/29/19 4:18:09 PM #3:	Wikipedia says it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that numberand so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. WTF <cite>Josiah_Is_Back posted [p:932204769] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>Wikipedia says it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that numberand so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. WTF </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Aristoph 12/29/19 4:21:46 PM #4:	Yeah, Graham's number is just insane. --- PSN ID: Aristoph http://www.youtube.com/user/SotCRules <cite>Aristoph posted [p:932204916] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, Graham's number is just insane. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Accolon 12/29/19 4:24:48 PM #5:	Graham's is honestly p small --- https://imgur.com/XAMp8 <cite>Accolon posted [p:932205039] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>Graham's is honestly p small </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Josiah_Is_Back 12/29/19 4:26:53 PM #6:	Accolon posted... Graham's is honestly p small The fact that it's dwarfed by TREE(3) is beyond comprehension <cite>Josiah_Is_Back posted [p:932205124] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>Accolon posted... </cite> <quote>Graham's is honestly p small</quote> The fact that it's dwarfed by TREE(3) is beyond comprehension </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wewillrocku 12/29/19 4:29:37 PM #7:	Josiah_Is_Back posted... The fact that it's dwarfed by TREE(3) is beyond comprehension lol, it beats me too --- The american prison system is a sorry mess but giving them game consoles isn't going to solve anything. Zurriah <cite>Wewillrocku posted [p:932205229] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>Josiah_Is_Back posted... </cite> <quote>The fact that it's dwarfed by TREE(3) is beyond comprehension</quote>lol, it beats me too </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Mega_Greninja 12/29/19 4:39:33 PM #8:	I call bull <cite>Mega_Greninja posted [p:932205604] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>I call bull </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Woodger 12/29/19 5:07:03 PM #9:	It's big, it's kinda beyond the realm of multiplying plank volumes a googolplex times etc. Consider how many 3s are being thrown about, and that with power towers, 3^3^3^3^3 is already bigger than a googolplex... If you've got some time, this is one of the best attempts I've seen to explain its bigness: https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html <cite>Woodger posted [p:932206661] in CE mathema... [t:78290952]...</cite> <quote>It's big, it's kinda beyond the realm of multiplying plank volumes a googolplex times etc. Consider how many 3s are being thrown about, and that with power towers, 3^3^3^3^3 is already bigger than a googolplex... If you've got some time, this is one of the best attempts I've seen to explain its bigness: https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > CE mathematicians, is this a good way of describing the size of Graham's number? (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > CE mathematicians, is this a good way of describing the size of Graham's number?