wat.
>>16969100It's really fuckin' big.
I swear to you. No matter how many times I watch that Numberphile video, I still don't understand how TREE(3) works.
>>16969100wat :)
Where and when?
>>16969117I've watched every Holly Krieger Numberphile video TREE(3) times
>>16969689TREE(3) is not enough to quantify how big of a crush I have on her (Hannah Fry)
This is the biggest number.If you're a simpleton then you think "biggest number" means TREE(3) + 1. Or TREE(TREE(3)).If you're slightly less of a simpleton then you think Graham's number is REALLY BIG because it describes every single combination that you can make out of a huge number of things.If you're scientifically minded then you look for the common thread between these things. This is the biggest number because the rate it which it scales given a constant is the biggest. And it goes from 1, to 3, to whatever the fuck this is.It defies scientific notation.There are not enough atoms in the universe to represent this number using one atom as one bit of information. Space is like 99.9999% empty space, and even if all of empty space were filled to the brim with atoms, the answer is still "no shot".When you ask AI how big the universe would be compared to TREE(3), it says "a tiny speck".It defies imagination.It appears to defy logic. It's made out of something logical, there's only a handful of rules to it.Every day that has passed since humanity has discovered this should be spent questioning what the fuck it is we have discovered.
