@staryuukiii: Cosas de amigos 👀

Staryuuki
Staryuuki
Open In TikTok:
Region: US
Saturday 26 September 2020 00:29:45 GMT
941754
181732
655
1142

Music

Download

Comments

tarzan936
Tarzan936 :
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ ┏━━╮┏┓┏┓╭━┓┏━┓ ┃┏╮┃┃┃┃┃┃╭┛┃┗┓ ┃┃┃╰┛┃┃┃┃╰┓┃┗┓ ┗┛╰━━┛┗┛╰━┛┗━┛ ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
2020-09-26 17:55:03
90
jose.ladino4
José Luis Ladino Mor :
Espero un saludo tuyo, eres lo mejor 🥰😅
2020-09-26 00:31:13
112
koniluis007
Ichigo gamer :
wauuu se te ve hermoso el vestido ase resaltar tus ojos hermosos,🥰
2020-09-26 01:25:15
38
cain_verdugo
Carlos V :
jaja 😂 si que eres graciosa y linda
2020-09-26 05:18:46
3
_vicvic_8
victor :
jaja ese si estubo muy bueno ,te mamaste ese😂😂
2020-09-26 05:15:32
2
amauriovln
Abel Mauricio Ovando :
Los nuevos chistes de gallegos 😂😂😂
2020-09-26 05:39:48
2
vlsalv214
#214 :
Eres portada de un video en YouTube 😳
2020-09-26 07:25:00
5
jd_a.franco
Diego Franco :
guapura😘😉
2020-09-26 01:41:45
1
8_claudio_8_azz_8
Claudio_Azz_888 :
jajajajajaajaja me perdi un poco pero lo entendi xd xd xd 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
2020-09-26 02:57:37
45
dynamoa1_
Oscar Martin :
no me digas que se buguio otra vez😂😂😂😂
2020-09-26 05:34:51
2
jg2_ses206
Jhandel :
jajaja me tus videos son de lo mejor me encantas digo digo me encantan :3
2020-09-26 03:28:33
3
heiberdanielgilortiz
Heiber Daniel Gil Or :
jajajajaja 😅
2020-09-26 00:50:01
5
ff_francisco1
❤️gamer❤️ :
me a pasado muchas veses😂😂😂
2020-09-26 01:46:38
2
fernandobecerril11
Ailen❤️ :
Yo e buscado mi celular y en llamada con el estoy😂😅😅😅😅
2020-09-26 01:38:57
2
alexpereavaz
Alex Perea.V :
me ha pasado jajajaja 😂😂😂
2020-09-26 00:32:05
15
miike_rocker
Mike Rocker :
ni inventes... eres mi crush nivel Dios
2020-09-26 03:53:41
3
sladerx6
Víctor Medina :
A mi una vez me paso algo parecido. Yo estaba buscando mi celular, no lo encontraba, lo busqué y luego me di cuenta de que lo tenía en la mano, jajaja
2020-09-26 02:09:09
12
extreme.denis
Extreme Denis :
Chale me borró el comentario Yuki 💔
2020-09-28 05:09:44
2
eduardofreefire30
user4269497371043 :
ésa cosa😂😂
2020-09-26 05:00:10
1
elyissus1
JESUS :
ERES ERMOSA 🥰 LOMAS BELLO DE LA MUNDO 🥰🥰
2020-09-26 02:48:49
1
stryker034
DEXTER PLAY :
tanta hermosura para el ojo humano ya me enamore 😔
2020-09-26 01:38:46
1
nico0324o3
nico03_o3x :
16 uuuuuuuuuuu
2020-09-26 00:34:18
1
guijosueemor4n
Gjosuemorn. :
jajajajja 😂 me a pasado :"v
2020-09-27 05:47:15
1
blue_hm
𝓑𝓵𝓾𝓮.ೃ࿐ :
Cosas que Pasan 😂😂😂😂
2020-09-26 17:24:30
1
kaomi.col
Kaomi夜 :
de que color era el bolso de atrás???? nah te creas veámoslo denuevo mi pana 😳👌❤
2020-09-26 05:33:24
1
To see more videos from user @staryuukiii, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form  a b c ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ {\displaystyle a^{b^{c^{\cdot ^{\cdot ^{\cdot }}}}}}, even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical busy beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387.[1] Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is  g 64 {\displaystyle g_{64}},[2] where g n = { 3↑↑↑↑3,	 if  n=1  and 3 ↑ g n − 1 3,	 if  n≥2.  {\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}} Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid. #tcc #51 #foryourpagetiktok
Graham's number is an immense number that arose as an upper bound on the answer of a problem in the mathematical field of Ramsey theory. It is much larger than many other large numbers introduced as effective bounds in mathematics, such as Skewes's bound, which in turn is much larger than a googolplex. Graham's number is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain its ordinary digital representation, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus, Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers of the form a b c ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ {\displaystyle a^{b^{c^{\cdot ^{\cdot ^{\cdot }}}}}}, even though Graham's number is indeed a power of three. However, Graham's number can be explicitly given by computable recursive formulas using Knuth's up-arrow notation or equivalent, as was done by Ronald Graham, the number's namesake. As there is a recursive formula to define it, it is much smaller than typical busy beaver numbers, the sequence of which grows faster than any computable sequence. Though too large to ever be computed in full, the sequence of digits of Graham's number can be computed explicitly via simple algorithms; the last 10 digits of Graham's number are ...2464195387.[1] Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is g 64 {\displaystyle g_{64}},[2] where g n = { 3↑↑↑↑3, if n=1 and 3 ↑ g n − 1 3, if n≥2. {\displaystyle g_{n}={\begin{cases}3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow 3,&{\text{if }}n=1{\text{ and}}\\3\uparrow ^{g_{n-1}}3,&{\text{if }}n\geq 2.\end{cases}}} Graham's number was used by Graham in conversations with popular science writer Martin Gardner as a simplified explanation of the upper bounds of the problem he was working on. In 1977, Gardner described the number in Scientific American, introducing it to the general public. At the time of its introduction, it was the largest specific positive integer ever to have been used in a published mathematical proof. The number was described in the 1980 Guinness Book of World Records, adding to its popular interest. Other specific integers (such as TREE(3)) known to be far larger than Graham's number have since appeared in many serious mathematical proofs, for example in connection with Harvey Friedman's various finite forms of Kruskal's theorem. Additionally, smaller upper bounds on the Ramsey theory problem from which Graham's number was derived have since been proven to be valid. #tcc #51 #foryourpagetiktok

About