Château de Purnon
Region: AU
Friday 13 March 2026 23:14:53 GMT
178564
20500
87
165
Music
Download
Comments
Sophie Walton :
I’d love to know about the original family. And the history of how it went from being owned by a wealthy family to ending up in ruin. What happened?
2026-03-14 01:32:49
951
Guti :
You think they also used the dry moat for some animals such as chickens or cows for daily supply of eggs and milk?
2026-03-14 00:44:18
309
Paige :
Shh.. my show is on 😍
2026-03-13 23:17:58
297
Scott Cohen :
How long did it take to build the chateau originally?
2026-04-20 03:50:59
1
Elle :
It probably also was used to grow food! Many castles had gardens outside the kitchens that grew fruits vegetables and herbs! They were referred to as garden kitchens!
2026-03-14 23:56:37
87
pamelamorgan146 :
did you find an ice house? love listening to the history. thank you both for sharing
2026-03-13 23:24:55
50
SpasticLabRat :
Why, then, put it in front? If it was to keep the help separate, wouldn’t having the moat behind the chateau make more sense?
2026-03-14 16:51:06
8
Nikki 🆘🇺🇸 :
The way I would fill that with flowers
2026-03-28 12:59:03
37
Eddie :
What were the white trees in the beginning omgg
2026-03-13 23:38:12
40
HailYea :
Gardens!
2026-03-13 23:23:33
14
Heather Kirk 🇨🇦 :
It reminds me of the structure of the Château de Vincennes, even if that one predates yours. I think their dry moat was just restored.
2026-04-03 13:45:39
0
Yasmin :
I see it as more of a walled garden than a moat.
2026-05-23 08:09:49
2
Poevai LL :
There’s a dry moat in Chateau d’Angers! It has been filled with many things like a zoo at one point! Fruit orchards, and many other things.
2026-05-17 15:43:00
0
Berethian :
So what makes it a moat? Rather than a sunken garden or what have you?
2026-03-14 12:57:51
4
Zack :
Is there anything left of the wine cellar?
2026-03-14 00:35:52
7
Stíofán :
babe wake up Château de Purnon just posted another video!
2026-03-14 07:12:10
6
Peace Love & Butter :
Let’s not forget the kitchen garden (herbs etc. And the LAUNDRY. Boiling clothes & linens outdoors. They would have hung the clothes lines, out of site.
2026-05-27 20:48:46
1
StarOne2$ :
Would love to know more about the family or families that lived there.
2026-03-20 01:46:48
5
_cupky :
so interesting 🥰
2026-03-14 01:17:00
5
Carolina :
lovely 😍
2026-03-13 23:25:22
5
Lozza🇦🇺 :
Thankyou for the information Tim 🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺
2026-03-14 05:28:58
3
Brooke Moore Michael :
Wow, that’s very interesting
2026-03-14 01:24:20
3
Shelly😏Puddin :
History sparks,questions,and utters one thing,humanity,played rich to poor.
2026-04-17 05:43:44
1
Janae & Chris :
Thanks for sharing the details. I loved learning more about your chateau
2026-04-07 21:02:40
1
Non :
Maybe this dry moat is a way to protect the chateau from forest fire?
2026-03-14 14:28:53
3
To see more videos from user @chateaupurnon, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![My friend likes his car, he wanted to race me at our town and i said: “if i lose i’ll edit you”. (bruh, i lost) || don’t flop. all fake. || 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. Context Example of a 2-colored 3-dimensional cube containing one single-coloured 4-vertex coplanar complete subgraph. The subgraph is shown below the cube. This cube would contain no such subgraph if, for example, the bottom edge in the present subgraph were replaced by a blue edge – thus proving by counterexample that N* > 3. Graham's number is connected to the following problem in Ramsey theory: Connect each pair of geometric vertices of an n-dimensional hypercube to obtain a complete graph on 2n vertices. Colour each of the edges of this graph either red or blue. What is the smallest value of n for which every such colouring contains at least one single-coloured complete subgraph on four coplanar vertices? In 1971, Graham and Rothschild proved the Graham–Rothschild theorem on the Ramsey theory of parameter words, a special case of which shows that this problem has a solution N*. They bounded the value of N* by 6 ≤ N* ≤ N, with N being a large but explicitly defined number](/video/cover/7656761071088291104.webp)
