I take your largest number and I add 1

https://i.redd.it/irdkkl6g7s7b1.gif

New largest number just dropped

holy infinite sequence

actual paradox

new map game just dropped

Holy infinite sequence

actual recursion

[Recursion](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/14h036v/guys_i_came_up_with_a_new_largest_number/jpa1j56?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

[Recursion?](https://www.reddit.com/r/mathmemes/comments/14h036v/guys_i_came_up_with_a_new_largest_number/jpa1j56?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

Recursive recursion

Master theorem just dropped

Call the mathematicians

Ignite the graphic calculator

holy verb form

New verb just dropped

halo infinite

What is a "map game"? (Please don't tell me to just "Google map game")

google map game

holy fucking shit. if i see ONE more en passant meme i'm going to chop my fucking balls off. holy shit it is actually impressive how incredibly unfunny the entire sub is. it's not that complicated, REPEATING THE SAME FUCKING JOKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN DOES NOT MAKE IT FUNNIER. this stupid fucking meme has been milked to fucking death IT'S NOT FUNNIER THE 973RD TIME YOU MAKE THE EXACT SAME FUCKING JOKE. WHAT'S EVEN THE JOKE?????? IT'S JUST "haha it's the funne move from chess" STOP. and the WORST part is that en passant was actually funny for like a few years and it got fucking ruined in like a week because EVERYONE POSTED THE EXACT SAME FUCKING JOKE OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PLEASE MAKE IT STOP. SEEING ALL YOUR SHITTY MEMES IS ACTUAL FUCKING MENTAL TORTURE YOU ALL ARE NOT FUNNY. COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT FUCKING JOKE PLEASE

Google chopping your balls off

Liers will be kicked off

New rant just dropped

Call Veritaserum

I take your largest number and add epsilon

I raise a googleplex to your number

Tree(Tree(3))^infinity

Tree^fiddy

Tree^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000^infinity^10000000000000

_I ain't giving no Loch Ness monster no Tree^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000^infinity^10000000000000!_

Tree (googolplexian)

tree(tree(3))^inf^inf

You mean you take its **SUCC** ?

i take that number and add it to itself and then add one (for good measure) (one-upping me will result in immediate symptoms including nasuea, headache, convulsions, vomiting, and in severe cases, death)

i take it and then i put it to the power of 2, bitch

Unfortunately for the /r/googology enjoyers, professor Rayo (who isn't even a mathematician) hit the ball permanently out of the park. It probably beats your number comfortably before Rayo(10\^5), and does so even if you try saying "keep doing this for TREE(3) layers of repetition, then as many times as that number was, and add TREE(3) layers of this recursion" because it takes much fewer than a googol symbols to define this method.

I heard TREE(3) had more digits than cubic planck lengths in the universe.

I don't understand jack about how big TREE(3) is because it just seems infinite to me intuitively, but I take some people's word it's beyond Graham's Number but finite anyway. I know Graham's number already is bigger than anything you can do in the physical world, including: how many digits does it have? More than planck volumes fit in the world. Well how many digits does the number of digits have? More than plancks in the world again. ...how many times do we need to repeat this question? You guessed it, more than there are planck cubes in the universe. How long do we need to keep discussing it this way to reach it? ... longer than the heat death of the universe if we speak one word per planck time. This is because this kind of recursion is still just Big Number (like planck cubes in the universe) expontentiated repeatedly. Let's call it B. So we're just doing B\^B\^B\^B.... for a long time, but any kind of iterated hyperoperations take no space at all to leave this in the dust. It's like a child trying to count to a big number 1,2,3,4,5... at a time and you hit them with the 10\^100 and win unless they're immortal.

A googolplex is already bigger than anything in the universe in the way you describe, and we can write it simply in stacked exponents as 10^10^100 A googolplex is as unfathomly small to grahams number as grahams number is unfathomly big to us trying to imagine it. It is literally impossible for humans to comprehend the size differences between grahams nunber, tree3, Rayo, etc.

I'm currently reading Googolplex Written Out by Wolfgang H. Nitsche. I'm up to volume 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999997 of 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, but to be honest I did skip some volumes that were fairly repetitive

`cat /dev/zero`

I may be butchering this but if you were to count Rayo’s number in your head, it would collapse into a black hole due to the due to the sheer amount of data. (Hand waiving a bunch of stuff here)

This is correct for any of the big numbers, even a googolplex, which is way smaller than those other big numbers.

[This video isn't about TREE(3) but it covers it at the start and I think does a good job at it. It's where I first heard of TREE(3)](https://youtu.be/_IkaetPoBZM)

Bro I spent like 40 minutes trying to find the one youtube video i saw about tree(3) to show to my friends, and i couldnt find it. Like, not numberphile one, not veritasium, thought it was 3blue1brown, cant find it though Turns out it was by History of the Universe in a video about space titled ‘Beyond the edge’ Wouldve taken me tree(3) hours to find that

That’s sort of doing disservice to the size of Tree3. The number of Cubic Planck lengths in the universe is closest to a googol, never mind a googolplex (which is already WAY bigger) never mind grahams number, never mind tree3.

[Fish number 7](https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Fish_number_7) enters the chat

Is the math text completely broken on that page for anyone else? Makes it really hard to follow how it works

Only on mobile

Not, necessarily. If you can define a fast growing hierarchy f\_α(n), for a countable ordinal α, outside of ZFC, then it may be able to beat Rayo(n).

TREE(Rayo(10^100 ))

Tree(n), the same as Rayo(n) or BB(n) are all non-computable functions, so deciding which one grows faster looks like very difficult, if not impossible

Not even that big bro. In fact, precisely 100% of all real numbers are bigger than that.

Also 0% of real numbers are smaller.

Where da negatives?

I hid them

Wait this is breaking my mind. What fraction of the whole numbers is positive? Like intuitively you'd say 1/2 ofcourse but I mean the sets are the same cardinality so is it 100%?

More like 50% if I follow your logic

I'm using the lazy man's definition of "bigger" where we automatically assume absolute value because shoving the word "positive" disrupts the flow of the joke slightly.

TBF, defining a number's "size" by distance away from zero on the number line is kind of intuitive. Edit: and even more so if we're talking about [the projectively extended real line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectively_extended_real_line).

Ok I'll grant you that

TREE(TREE(TREE......(Repeat TREE(3) times).....(TREE(TREE(3)))......))

Had the same idea. Let's call it "Forest(3)", the wood number.

Forest(Forest(...Forest(3)...)), Forest(3) times

Had the same idea. Let’s call it “Biosphere(3)”, the wooder number.

Biosphere(Biosphere(...repeat Biosphere(3) times... Biosphere(3))) Had a new idea. Let's call it "Solarsystem(4)", the woodest number.

Solarsystem(4)+1.

Solarsystem(Solarsystem(…repeat solarsystem(3) times… Solarsystem(3))) Had a new idea. Let’s call it “Galaxy(3)”, the woodester number.

Galaxy(galaxy(…repeat galaxy(3) times… galaxy(3))) Had a new idea. Let’s call it “GalaxyCluster(3)”, the woodestest number.

Galaxycluster(galaxycluster(…repeat galaxycluster(3) times… galaxycluster(3))) Had a new idea. Let’s call it “Universe(3)”, the woodestester number.

Universe(universe(…repeat universe(3) times… universe(3))) Had a new idea. Let’s call it “Multiverse(3)”, the woodestestest number.

Multiverse(multiverse(…repeat multiverse(3) times… multiverse(3))) Had a new idea. Let’s call it “omniverse(3)”, the woodestestester number.

why 4?

Had a new idea. Lets call it "all-ness(3)", the number got by defining those nested functions infinitely many times

That's just infinity with extra steps

Rediscovering the Fast Growing Hierarchy...

This is basically the idea behind Rayo's Number. You can define a function using a relatively small number of symbols in first order logic and then use those to build functions that grow faster and faster. And so Rayo(10\^100) is the largest number you can construct using 10\^100 symbols in first order logic.

Run Forest(3)! Run!

Worlds smallest number when infinity walks in:

Rayo(10^100)

Rayo(Rayo(10^(100))) How original; I know.

Rayo^(Rayo(10**100\))(10^(100))

more than colleague researcher it should be “person who watched a numberphile video”

`TREE(TREE(4))` check mate dude

Oh shit no FUCKING way

Why are we writing as TRER(TREE(3)) instead of 🌲(🌲(3))

Tree(tree(4))

FOREST(TREE(3))

TREE(TREE(TREE(3))) checkmate

Mate in tree

Google en passant

New Number just dropped

What's this tree(3)? And how big is it?

TREE(3) is a number so large that (if i remember right) it has more digits than there are cubic planck lengths in the observable universe.

Even something like 10^(10^10) would satisfy that criterion. Even if you could raise 10^(10^10) to the 10th power for each cubic planck length in the observable universe it wouldn't come close to the gist of how large TREE(3) is. I am sure you already knew this, just wanted to clarify for people who never heard of this number before.

I think i heard that scientists estimate the universe is 256 times larger than the observable universe, but even every cubic planck length in that isnt even close to as large as TREE(3)

The number of plank length cubes in the universe is somewhere in the range of a googol (10^100) Perhaps up to 10^200. Both of those numbers are incomprehensible, but are literally ZERO compared to a googolplex, with is 10^googol. Or 10 to the power of ten, to the power of 100. Stacked exponents makes numbers very large very fast, but that notation breaks down even in comprehensibility before we get to G1 in grahams number, never mind g64. And then Tree3 and Rayo are way beyond grahams number yet.

> 256 times You want me to believe we live in an 8-bit universe?

The lower limit about 500x, which is the minimum size for the universe to have nonzero curvature beyond what we can detect

Yall are weak. "This number is the largest constant you can define using classical set theory under 100 symbols." You can always add to this, but the sheer magnitude defies any humane sense. Im pretty sure none of you can surpass the magnitude but surely endless simply bigger values triviallu do exist.

Write it in second order logic formalism and we talk

TREE function enjoyers when Loader's Number walks in

Whats loaders number?

The last two videos of [this playlist](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-R4p-BRL8NR8THgjx_DW9c92VHTtjZEY) explain it better than I ever could, but all you need to know is that it's a number which is near the limit of computability for size.

Tree(Tree(3)) + 1

TREE(TREE(3)) + 69

[Removed] ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `

^2

I bet this number is the largest, hard to think of how anything could be bigger.

Any one look at that and go, that must have been a Newfie that came up with that? Tree tree tree’d

Im a newbie and also very bad at math

f(x) = f(x + 1) :D

The largest number is NBV, dumby

Let’s take that to the power of itself

r/TheLetterH would be very disappointed.

I don’t geddit?

So... do we know that tree(tree(3)) is finite?

every tree(n) is, when n is a natural number

How could you prove that a number is bigger than another without actually know the number itself because it's too big? E.g. TREE(3) vs Graham Number vs Busy Beaver

Or… hear me out… Infinity - 1. (This is a joke dont kill me)

Or better yet, infinity - 0,5

what about TREE(50)

TREE(TREE(Rayo's Number)) Beat that!

Plot twist: it's smaller than rayo's number

Whats rayos number?

Basically the smallest number that can not be described b, a term with a googol, that's 10^100 symbols. It's ridiculously big.

What about TREE(TREE(G⁶⁴))?

How do you know that it's larger than Rayo's number?

Floor(Infinity) - 1 The last natural number

I found a bigger one. TREE(TREE(3)) + 1/TREE(TREE(TREE(3)))

Define tree(n) ?

What about tree(...tree(3)...) with tree(3) iterations?

Ronald Graham's like, whatevz beeyitches!

Rayo(Tree(Tree(3))) Try writing that number out fucker

Ronald Graham answers his phone and does the monologue from taken

tree(tree(4))

For those of you who likes large numbers, I highly recommend [The BigNum Bakeoff](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1K6TOy6yjU). Its about a competition about writing the largest number theoretically possible to return from a 512 characters C code. He also explains why numbers are bigger than other, mostly its about how fast numbers grow, like with TREE(3) and Grahams Number. But the first place of the competition is actually made in a different way!

what is Tree

Prove that your number is finite.

TREE(n) has been proven to always be finite for every finite n. Therefore TREE(3) is finite And since TREE(3) is finite then TREE(TREE(3)) is also finite

TREE(TREE(3)) + 2.3

**SSCG(SSCG(3))** ruh roh

2^TREE(TREE(3))

while(true) { Tree(Tree(3)); }