You were underselling g2 there, if g1 is the size of an atom, g2 would be way bigger than the any meaningful estimate of the size of the finite multiverse.
It's even worse than that. The first several steps of just 3↑↑↑3 far outgrow the universe. The number of atoms in the universe is estimated to be a number with 82 zeros. 3↑↑↑3 is a power tower of 3's that is over 7.6 trillion 3's tall. Those 3's grow from 3 to 27 to ~ 7.6 trillion to a number with over 3.6 billion zeros in just the first 4 steps of the 7.6 trillion!
g2 is so big that there is no point trying to compare it to anything. imagine comparing 1 to a big number. there is no apparent difference comparing it to one quadrillion or comparing it to one quintillion. people can't comprehend the difference while a quintillion is x1000 bigger. so I think the comparison while is not even close it makes a valid point. Even if he compared it to the size of the finite multiverse, lets say a multiverse consists of 1e100 universes, still that's just 1e182 which isn't very different to 1e82 when we are talking about g2.
@@dr.sleaseball441 I hear you, what makes g2 truly a beast is the fact that is it's not just orders of magnitude bigger than g1, which by itself is incomprehensibly enormous by any scale, g2 is practically in it's own universe of enormousness, orders of magnitude are meaningless at each unit increment in the Graham function.
TREE(3) could have been mentioned due to it being an example of a number greater than G(64) to show what you meant but this is still a good video. Good luck with your channel.
Thanks! I'm aware TREE(3) is significantly larger (for lack of a better word), but I when I read about it, I didn't feel I understand everything, so I played safe and omitted TREE(3) from the video
Well, so I saw BEAF and it seems like it's still a bit of work in progress (meaning: I have no idea what's going on here). Hyper E, however, is quite fascinating. I've added it to my ideas for videos file, thanks!
I like to imagine a future where handling these insanely huge numbers would lead humans into making more efficient calculators which would in turn better the average computer processor. Nvidia would of course charge $4000 dollars for it and keep me from ever affording one, but it would be cool.
3↑↑↑4 = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑3)) = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑(3↑↑(3↑↑3))) = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑(3↑↑(3↑(3↑3)))) = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑(3↑↑(3↑27))) = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑(3↑↑7.6T)) = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑(3↑3↑3↑...7.6T times)) = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑↑VERYHUGE) = 3↑↑↑(3↑↑3↑↑3↑↑... VERYHUGE times) = .... = 3↑↑↑INSANELYGIGANTIC = 3↑↑3↑↑3↑↑3↑↑...INSANELYGIGANTIC times = ... and it goes on and you get.... A really big number basically
No, it's 3 tetrated by 7,625,597,484,987. The number you mentioned is 3 tetrated by 4. 3^^^3 is so big that the simplest form it can be written in is iterated exponential notation; actually evaluating it would yield a number too big to fit into the observable universe.
@@omardiaz6255TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE(TREE… TREE*G(64(SSCG(SSCG(SSCG(SSCG(SSCG(SSCG(SSCG… SSCG(10^100) with TREE(3) amount of TREEs and SSCG(3) amount of SSCGs.
@@shophaune2298 ill be honest, i kind of belive anyone about any claim, im an amateur in number theory, never really dug into why tree is beigger than Graham and so, in a physicist not a mathematician
