Graham's Number is too big for the universe

[zalibecquerel]

I like rewatching the Numberphile video where Graham talks about Graham's Number. He says "Three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three to the three... " quite a lot.

[FranklinLee-tk]

Graham once said “How many digits does Graham’s Number have? Well about the same number.”

[mihailsivanovs]

DO NOT COMPARE Graham's Number with the Universe, every Googologist should know that 3^^^3 is already more than anything that can be imagined even in the multiverse! And the Grahams Number is greater than 3^^^3, well, times the Graham Number!

[mateobaca]

Thanks for the content. When could you make an explanation for BMS, Y Sequence, Tar and its relation to the limite of computable? Lambda calculus would also be incredible.

[davidhopkins]

If I begin a forest with the first tree being a white root and black child, and the nth tree has at most n+1 vertices, and no earlier tree in inf-embeddable in any later tree, how many trees will be in the longest forest I can make?

[thepopboyuscl]

What about the probability of me or you existing. Can you discuss about that in next video?

[danielroden]

G(64) but about even getting past G(1)? do any of those absurd events even approach that?

[vizart]

How big would the universe have to be to fit Grahams number within it?

[LuisaBedoyamartinez]

hey carbrickscity, do you think the size of the observable universe is overrated?

[dantemarotta]

Googolplex cannot be written out in decimal in the Universe let alone real BIG numbers like Skewes Graham etc