@samgregorio14: #Reflexión para todos 🥺❤️‍🩹 #fipシviralvideo❤tiktok🙏🏻#paratiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

🎼 ❤️‍🩹El Santito🥺🎼
🎼 ❤️‍🩹El Santito🥺🎼
Open In TikTok:
Region: GT
Tuesday 21 April 2026 03:40:25 GMT
15246521
577844
12633
373883

Music

Download

Comments

kari54_
sharlo☯️✅️ :
🥺🥺🥺no disfrute a mi papá 😭😭😭 quien mire este comentario disfruten su familia 🥹
2026-04-22 03:54:00
2129
zojhiker
ROMEL #47 :
permiso para llorar 😭
2026-04-23 18:51:18
504
k.stefany109
k.Stefany109 :
yo soy madre soltera y tengo 2 hijos adolescentes y no me obedecen y yo me siento tan triste y me duele mucho la cabeza porque yo les aconsejo por el bien de ellos y ya nose como aser desde este momento pido que me yeben en oración para que Dios ilumine sus corazones para que baloren mis consejos
2026-04-25 21:49:53
350
whoislisy12
Лисбет12 :
Mi papá me lo mandó 😭
2026-04-26 16:03:57
164
tu.amigo.fiel68
❤️💥El_CAPI 👀🙈💥 :
8 años estoy lejos demi mamá 🥹😢🥹
2026-04-22 15:21:59
139
12rlz
RLZ 💯 :
no todos los padres son iguales yo los tengo y es como si no existiera hasta la fecha , crecí con ellos nunca tuve amor nunca tuve paz solo solo sufrimiento , hoy x hoy soy solita sin padre sin madre somos 7 hermanos y de eso 7 solo 2 nos llevemos medio bien son los mayores, soy feliz con mi esposo y mi hija vivimos la vida al máximo ellos son únicos
2026-04-22 15:37:27
20
.anita.572
@Any🌸🦅🌱 :
desde pequeña me enseñaron a trabajar mil gracias papá mamá ahora estoy donde estoy 🙏🙏🙏🤗🤗🤗🤗
2026-04-21 18:03:39
674
loly.romero8
Loly Romero :
yo mis hijos ya me abandonaron niede se acuerdan ninguna llamada 😭😭😭😭😭😭
2026-04-22 17:16:29
186
potosinomel
user2552546162980 :
mi papá hoy cumpliría años 26 de abril y fui al panteón y fui a pedirle perdón por que también a veces uno no es buen hijo uno a veces como hijo también falla y le dije perdóname papá por no haber sido un buen hijo porque todo el tiempo te juzgue 😭😭😭😭
2026-04-27 01:29:31
11
maria.luisa.lpez6
❤️santafe López 🌹 :
eso se siente un vacío muy feo porque yo tampoco tengo mamá ni papá 😭😳
2026-04-24 18:36:36
134
netolainez772
netolainez772 :
que bonita reflexión 🙏🙏🙏
2026-06-13 20:00:28
0
juan_fuentes1
user6833219655401 :
El amor de padres es el mejor regalo para los hijos yo amo a mis padres
2026-04-23 12:15:14
296
hermosa.179
Hermosa 91 :
un nudo en la garganta se me hizo 😢😢
2026-04-26 01:06:29
71
user9215276993
Geovanny Almeida :
bonita y dolorosa realidad y reflexión 😢
2026-04-27 13:41:42
25
yoelismar.maikelis
𝓨𝓸𝓮𝓵𝓲𝓼⭐️ :
Me lo mando mi papá 😭
2026-04-28 16:28:39
41
bismaralmendars
Almendares🇭🇳❤️‍🔥 :
Entiendo todo eso yo perdí mis dos padres 😭
2026-05-13 04:01:41
8
maria_e0819
chiqui castro :
eso es verdad cuando uno tiene los padres y no los valoramos y cuando no están es cuando uno se da cuenta de lo que valen y desea devolver el tiempo 😭😭😭😭
2026-06-04 21:33:41
8
thefuture01003
...🧟‍♂️ :
porque todos los papá nos lo esta mandando
2026-05-19 14:24:52
6
francisca.colmena5
✌️Francolm03 :
honra a tus padres mientras los tengas vivos🥺
2026-05-05 23:34:00
13
haida.ordoes
🍒Hada Ordóñez ✨🍒 :
Que tremenda Enseñanza 😢😢😢Ayudame Dios mío hacer una buena mujer esposa madre porque tú conoses mis pensamientos y mi corazón 🙏🙏🙏
2026-04-21 20:36:27
186
nune.mata
Nune Mata :
Eso es muy cierto cuando pierdes a tus dos padres es un dolor muy grande
2026-04-22 12:36:21
73
mendez0470
dante :
tengo 37 años y hace 7 perdí a mis padres, vivo solo y cada noche al llegar del trabajo se siente una ausencia interminable se siente un vacío en mi corazón porque me hacen falta mis padres soy hombre pero el sentimiento de no tener a mis padres es algo que no se lo deseo a nadie 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
2026-05-05 06:03:46
7
anita.amador49
morales anita :
cuánto uviera querido disfrutar con mis padres pero se separaron cuando yo estaba pequeño quien mire este comentario valoren a sus padres si aún lo tienen en vida porq si duele no estar con eyos😭😭😭😭
2026-05-21 21:27:41
5
xamilix_137
✨🍒 𝓧𝓪𝓶𝓲𝓒𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓻𝔂 🍒✨ :
Gracias Dios por mandarme a los mejores padres 🙏😭✨
2026-04-28 00:07:14
9
To see more videos from user @samgregorio14, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Noob Vs Pro dancer #ddlc #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 #sinister #tlpur
Noob Vs Pro dancer #ddlc #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 #sinister #tlpur

About