The Food Guy
Region: US
Wednesday 22 March 2023 00:15:29 GMT
13005064
1136069
7316
4894
Music
Download
Comments
. :
Chicharron in Mexico 🇲🇽 is fries pork skin(no meat)
2023-03-23 06:06:06
11938
Benja :
this is the real chicharrón
2023-03-22 00:32:41
11559
gio :
i’m mexican and there both called chicharones but the first one can be called churros too
2023-03-22 16:23:25
10723
Daniel A Ferreira :
Ignore the comments saying that you’re eating it wrong. Every Latino country eats it differently. I’m Colombian and I’ve never seen it with guac.
2023-03-22 01:10:52
3104
Terrones :
he didnt like it😂
2023-03-22 03:41:01
2361
Sean.Kinsella :
It was ment to be with Guacc!!!! 🥶
2023-03-22 00:20:22
3276
𝙍𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙤𝙠𝙪 🔥 :
bro try the Filipino chicharon
2023-05-08 07:47:13
2757
The Food Guy :
What would you rate Chicharrón??
2023-03-22 00:18:35
1878
gloxz38 :
Y’all need to let him eat how ever he wants fr💀
2023-03-22 03:41:38
414
shorfan :
Try it with guac
2023-03-22 01:53:15
631
Kasandra :
They are both Chicharrón to me sir!!!👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
2023-03-22 16:36:03
447
Azzel :
Con guacamole 🥑
2023-03-22 01:06:22
756
user8543702628368 :
Luke dunphy?!?!?
2023-03-29 15:36:02
42
gwn.merlijnnnn :
You have to dip it in quaqamole
2023-03-27 03:33:56
63
️ :
i think that's lechon kawali
2023-04-01 05:02:19
1
🌙U.09 :
da8: of asking to eat like bayashi
2023-03-22 11:32:24
18
Hidde.4043 :
EAT IT WITH QUACAMOLE
2023-03-22 17:15:24
57
BURU :
y para colmo le da baja puntuación 😂
2023-03-23 13:29:19
83
13 :
anjir sambel lamongan
2023-03-22 05:35:46
167
chriszuhh_ :
still the wrong chicharon 🇵🇭
2023-03-22 00:26:52
9317
Jose🪶 :
w song
2023-03-22 02:42:56
6
សិទ្ធ :
nah that's crispy pata
2023-05-09 10:47:21
1232
goomman261 :
1000/10
2023-05-03 23:38:09
6
s0lar_rks 🇽🇰 :
fo it with guacamole
2023-03-22 11:49:51
15
Jay :
The inside looked really dry after that first bite😅
2023-03-24 00:07:54
17
To see more videos from user @tommywinkler, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![Dance🫡 #iqmaxx 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. #larp #333 #sinister #dwbi](/video/cover/7657216425869708557.webp)
