Tree (3) is so large one can't express it by running its length in the universe.. my thought question is whether you could express it as a base of log….

I don't understand why it's not infinite for all the TREEs. With one color – first tree: zero seed, second tree: zero seeds etc … there is only limit for the most seeds it can contain, not minimum

¿Que sucederia si el proceso pudiera ser simulado a nivel atomico, y la funcion de onda cuantica tuviese que explorar todos esos posibles estados antes de colapsar?

I have an easy solution for this. Become an ultrafinitist and reject the existence of TREE(3), the phrasing TREE(3) being a simple formal expression that doesn't correspond to any real number.

The sequence, I guess 1 , 3 , 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546 57437657365526526524946256425654633333336315431243124312541241513423558769649784976878767574376573655265265249462564256546333333363154312431243125412415134235587696497849768787676454664546 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546 574376573655265265249462564256546333333363154312431243125412415134235587696497849768787676454646624313100000000000000000000000000000325424622656565656565656565656565316632653265326532222222222222222222222266666666666665000000000000000000065433631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546466243131000000000000000000000000000003254246226565656565656565656565653166326336315431243124312541241513423558769649784976878767645 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546466243131000000000000000000000000000003254246226565656565656565656565653166326336315431243124312541241513423558769649784976878767645 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546466243131000000000000000000000000000003254246226565656565656565656565653166326 goes on and on and on………almost forever Tree(3)

Wait, but shouldn’t TREE(2) be 4, because you could have, for example, a red with another red, a red with a green, then just the individual red and green?

Something escapes me here. For tree(2) we had two reds which was not contained in one red right? Which rule stops us from starting at any n with n red nodes and the next tree just has one red node less?

Anywhere to go to get a sense why TREE(3) is so large, yet still finite? (It seems incredible to me that a series could go on for so long, and then stop. It's like if someone said that the 4-color map theorem is false, you just need a map with exactly a 210 billion partitions to get a first counter example. How could something "new" come up after so long?)

You were being awfully cheeky there lol. Your explanation of TREE(2) and then the graphic of TREE(3) showing a node with 5 coming off THEN 4 coming off THEN 3 three coming off as a way of getting around the common ancestry. I saw that, thought about it for a second, then my head almost exploded. That is crazy!

Don't miss the extra footage – Tony says it is better than the main video: https://youtu.be/IihcNa9YAPk

Эх не понятно ничего на английском

Tree(tree(3))

Wouldn't Tree(2) = 4? 2 green seeds, 2 red seeds, 1 green seed, 1 red seed?

I know what is bigger than Tree(3):

Tree(4)

What about TREE(4)

Tree (3) is so large one can't express it by running its length in the universe.. my thought question is whether you could express it as a base of log….

I wonder how of the scale tree(4) is

I don't understand why it's not infinite for all the TREEs. With one color – first tree: zero seed, second tree: zero seeds etc … there is only limit for the most seeds it can contain, not minimum

-1/12 is surely bigger than that

What about TREE{Graham’s Number}?

The Enormous TREE(3) but every time they say tree the video speeds up by TREE(3)%

3:08 nearest COMMON ancestor! I get it!

what is tree(4)? lol

¿Que sucederia si el proceso pudiera ser simulado a nivel atomico, y la funcion de onda cuantica tuviese que explorar todos esos posibles estados antes de colapsar?

The hyperbole in this video is so silly.

what's with 6:39? after the 7th tree, 8, 9, 10, and 11 break the rules? are they out of order?

Okay, so it's a big number. What's the closest named number? Is it close to a Googol? To a Googolplex? 10 to the Googolplex? Give me some words, here.

I don't get it… 😐

Tree（Tree（n））/ infinite = ？, where n = Graham’s Number

TREE(1): I'm just 1.

TREE(2): Ha, you noob! I'm 3!! I'm bigger than you!

TREE(3):

im about to end these guys' careerWhat about Green, Purple and Red? and what about 4 seeds?

Ackermann as is in steering geometry?

6:36 Could somebody explain why the 4th one isn't contained within the 6th? Both have 3 blacks and a red as a chain.

what about tree(16M)

I have an easy solution for this. Become an ultrafinitist and reject the existence of TREE(3), the phrasing TREE(3) being a simple formal expression that doesn't correspond to any real number.

How big is Tree(G64)?

TREE[0]? TREE[1/2]? TREE[-3]?

So why for TREE[2] could you not make it 4 by doing:

G-G

G

R-R

R

Tree(Tree(3))^Tree(Tree(3))?

Tree (2,5) = ?

What about TREE[TREE(3)]

Question : What's larger?

Tree(G(64))

Or

G(Tree(3))

then what's TREE (4)?

That escalated quickly.

What about TREE(TREE(3))

For TREE(2) can’t you do 2 green, one green, two red, one red for the longest game?

TREE[G64] =?

Tree(3)? That's nothing. My computer has a storage capacity of Tree(Tree(Tree({Graham's number})

TREE(TREE(TREE(…(TREE(Meameamealokkapoowa Oompa))…))) with TREE(Meameamealokkapoowa Oompa) sets of parentheses.

then what's tree(4)?

Tree(4):

(• ) (• ), ( • ) ( • )

The sequence, I guess 1 , 3 , 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546

57437657365526526524946256425654633333336315431243124312541241513423558769649784976878767574376573655265265249462564256546333333363154312431243125412415134235587696497849768787676454664546 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546 574376573655265265249462564256546333333363154312431243125412415134235587696497849768787676454646624313100000000000000000000000000000325424622656565656565656565656565316632653265326532222222222222222222222266666666666665000000000000000000065433631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546466243131000000000000000000000000000003254246226565656565656565656565653166326336315431243124312541241513423558769649784976878767645 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546466243131000000000000000000000000000003254246226565656565656565656565653166326336315431243124312541241513423558769649784976878767645 5743765736552652652494625642565463333333631543124312431254124151342355876964978497687876764546466243131000000000000000000000000000003254246226565656565656565656565653166326

goes on and on and on………almost forever Tree(3)

Wait, but shouldn’t TREE(2) be 4, because you could have, for example, a red with another red, a red with a green, then just the individual red and green?

8:17 what Tony thinks of Brexit

i just want to know, how did you know that TREE(3) is not infinite?

Chuck Norris could write out all possible TREE(3) examples on a Post-It note!

TREE(4)?

Something like genealogical charts

How do we actually know that Tree(3) is bigger than Graham's number?

so thats with 3 colors. what about 16.7 million colors, like a modern computer monitor? would that be infinite or just way bigger?

Well that escalated quickly!Can it be generalized to a real number argument? Surely TREE(2.001) can't be that big.

This video is one of my favorites over the years…

Interviewer: How big should the number be?

TREE(3): Yes

Why is TREE(2) = 3 and not 5 (red-green, red-red, green-green, red, green)?

DO NOT partake of the "green tree" before attempting to think about this one…

+1

Tree(graham’s number)

I just watched this video by

Tony Padillaand youtube just gave me a 13 reasons why commercial 🤦♂️🤦♂️of all the colors you choose red and green; the most common colors for colorblind people to confuse.

What about TREE(4) ?

Is tree(3) the biggest number ever used in mathematics?

Do we know anything about tree(3)? For example, do we know what its first or last digit is?

Study the function f(x)=xsinx, where x>=tree(3) and x<=tree(tree(3)).

Solve the equation: tree(n^3+n^2)=tree(3^n+2^n), where n is a positive integer.

TREE(TREE(3))?

What about fractional tree? That sounds like a complicated proof.

What about tree 8

Ray number puts you to shame and Infinite puts ray to shame

TREE(Graham’s Number)??

Does this describe how many colours we can see?

This in now way explains how tree(3) is bigger than Graham’s number. It is basically “take my word for it.”

For TREE(2), couldn't you do two greens, then two reds, then one green, then one red, thus giving 4 trees?

I want to know more about how they proved this was an ackermann number lower bound.

TREE(Graham's Number)

Something escapes me here. For tree(2) we had two reds which was not contained in one red right? Which rule stops us from starting at any n with n red nodes and the next tree just has one red node less?

What's stopping me from drawing infinitely many red seeds as the second tree at 6:35? Why did he stop at two?

Well….that escalated quickly

I got one bigger than that, Treehouse(4)

7:34 Request for a film where Tony plays the villain with this cunning plan to rule the world.

At 6:38 isn't the 3rd contained in 5,6,7,8,9,10 and 12?

How can you tell or prove that Tree(3) is larger than Graham’s?

Lovely <3

Chuck Norris plays TREE(5) using a watch calculator!!

Anywhere to go to get a sense why TREE(3) is so large, yet still finite? (It seems incredible to me that a series could go on for so long, and then stop. It's like if someone said that the 4-color map theorem is false, you just need a map with exactly a 210 billion partitions to get a first counter example. How could something "new" come up after so long?)

Why isn't Tree(2) 5? I mean, you could draw 2 greens, 2 reds, a green-red, a red seed, and a green one. What am I missing?

You were being awfully cheeky there lol. Your explanation of TREE(2) and then the graphic of TREE(3) showing a node with 5 coming off THEN 4 coming off THEN 3 three coming off as a way of getting around the common ancestry. I saw that, thought about it for a second, then my head almost exploded. That is crazy!

how do we know its a finite value?

It's like my little sister counting.

"One… three… gazillion billion"

Is anyone else now wondering how big TREE(TREE(3)) is/if anyone's done any research on that ridiculously large number?

Is there a dumbed down version of proof that shows TREE(3) is greater than grahams number?

Kudzu 3 grows much, much faster than Tree 3.

Can we have Phil Moriarty doing Tree(3) video please.

MORE TREE(3) PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I relatively recently discovered this channel.

It has a great spirit!. TREE(3)…

Thank you!

Is tree(4) infinite?

SCG(3) or SSCG(3) is much bigger

But is it bigger than yo mama?

Wait, can't you have two green seeds then two red seeds then one green seeds and then one red seeds having the two color game have four trees?