Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I read something interesting about the so-called Graham's number.
>
>   The number is a well-defined finite integer which is used in a serious
> proof of a mathematical problem, so it's not an artificially created one
> (in other words, the number came up when estimating the upper bound of
> that mathematical problem).
>
>   The number is so large that the entire observable universe would not be
> large enough to write it down, even if each written digit has the size of
> one Planck volume.
>
>   Moreover, the amount of digits in Graham's number is so large, that the
> entire observable universe is not big enough to likewise write down this
> amount.
>
>   Even the amount of digits in this amount is likewise too large.
>
>   The amount of such recursions you need to do before you get to a number
> which would fit in the observable universe (which is obviously a finite
> amount because the number is a finite integer) is so large that this amount
> wouldn't fit inside the observable universe.
>
>   A somewhat large number indeed.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

"Graham's number bottles of beer on the wall, Graham's number bottles of beer,
take one down - pass it around..."

C'mon everyone sing now!   ;-)


Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message