SELEBRITIS.INDONESIA
Region: ID
Thursday 17 July 2025 05:59:56 GMT
380000
4134
145
197
Music
Download
Comments
olivia :
supperr duper flawless jirrr complexion luu
2025-07-17 09:28:19
58
Ara Cantik :
padahal dia skintint tapi coverage nya gacoorr benerrr
2025-07-17 07:11:10
73
kristin 93 Tarigan :
betol kak
2025-08-25 11:41:51
1
nabilatifani :
sepill shade yang dipakai kaakkk
2025-07-17 10:17:09
64
Fath :
bisa nutupin flek hitam d muka gk kk
2025-07-22 13:13:33
2
baby angel :
hasilnya natural tapi bisa cover? Wah ini sih yang aku cari dari dulu
2025-07-21 11:07:49
42
jujumbaba1 :
sumpah kak kaya gapake base apa apa lohh final look nyaaa
2025-07-17 09:27:36
59
⋆𐙚`Liყαa.୨ৎ. :
dan yap tinggal bingung milih shade
2025-07-24 10:16:58
2
call me karla :
kalo beneran natural dan coverage-nya nampol, ini bakal jadi holy grail sih
2025-07-21 11:07:38
36
_Chellseavy :
pertama nih
2025-07-17 06:02:45
4
SELEBRITIS.INDONESIA :
Duhh ampunn 😭😭😭
2025-07-17 06:00:59
2
lelembut👻 :
aku selalu salah shade
2025-08-05 08:43:04
1
evaelvira :
hasilnya matte ga sis?
2025-07-22 16:20:35
0
🍀🌻Mei🌻🍀 :
skintin sama dgn isinya cushionnya gak?
2025-07-22 06:31:50
2
Yuni Fitrisia Rahayu :
bedanya skintint ama cushion apa ya kak? beneran tanya karena gak tau
2025-07-22 11:20:37
1
mallabadaruddin :
spill soflens nya
2025-07-17 06:08:41
1
semi :
Alhamdulillah muka w nga seancur itu yah
2025-08-08 03:19:34
9
SELEBRITIS.INDONESIA :
ABSEN SAYANG💋💋💋
2025-07-17 06:00:26
1
Libraria :
Aku make yg petal dan bagussssss bangeeeettttttt 👍👍👍
2025-07-22 04:19:54
1
Mantan pacarmu :
shade berapa kk
2025-07-22 06:22:10
1
Egg :
Skintint sama cushion ringan mana kak?
2025-07-22 16:21:31
3
Ibookipe💕 :
Kak bikin tutor make up buat nonton ama doi tpi yg natural help buat minggu depan😭
2025-07-17 07:17:50
1
ita scorpio🥰 :
itu lipstik di totol2 gak sih??? 😂😂😂 jd ilang
2025-08-28 12:10:29
0
Retnnoo Jeellybeen :
kulit sawo mateng pilih shade yg mn
2025-08-25 17:15:04
0
Witrhee :
sore teh
2025-07-20 09:15:04
0
To see more videos from user @delpaanjurii, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![Peak Empire 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 such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much, much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. 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. Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number is g 64 {\displaystyle g_{64}},[1] 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. #russia #moscow #fyp #targetaudience #viral](/video/cover/7632201609732197650.webp)
