@sarkiclothing01: #kanotikto #fashiontiktok #sarkiclothin01 #craftbasetelorsassociation #viralvideos @Kamzeed _ceo @EASY COLLECTION 👕🪡 @comrade sani @H_Bichi_Clothing

Ahmad Ahmad
Ahmad Ahmad
Open In TikTok:
Region: NG
Sunday 26 April 2026 20:10:56 GMT
71683
6918
34
237

Music

Download

Comments

mustaphakhalil07
mustaphakhalil39 :
omo naga wannan, oga Ahmad
2026-04-27 19:01:05
1
hmdstyles_
HMD Styles :
exclusivity I salute your consistency
2026-04-29 10:55:42
1
musarandy
Musa Mmusa :
up up
2026-04-27 21:02:30
1
prosper7505
prosper7505 :
Beautiful
2026-05-21 17:32:28
0
rar_sarkee_clothing_caps
R A R SARKEE CLOTHING & CAPS :
🥰🥰🥰ALLAH QARA LPY DA TSAWAN RAE
2026-04-26 21:00:24
1
shareef_0016
shareef_001 :
Nobely ✂️✂️
2026-05-21 22:46:06
0
sir_shareef
-Sir_Shareef :
Allah ubangiji yakara daukaka
2026-04-27 08:58:36
1
kingayubavipusk
KING AYUBA VIP TAILORING :
👑👑👑
2026-04-27 14:01:02
1
yasiraliyusani
JAURO CLOTHING :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-04-27 11:47:46
1
gaske.tela1
gaske tela :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-04-27 18:59:29
1
user053872508
224 :
😳😳😳
2026-04-27 23:19:13
1
ab_saleh3
EASY COLLECTION 👕🪡 :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-04-26 22:59:29
1
salihufashiondesign
SALIHU FASHION DESIGN :
💯💯💯💯
2026-04-26 21:20:24
1
sarkiclothing01
Ahmad Ahmad :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-04-26 20:11:43
1
abzdesign1
ABZ design🧵🪡 :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-04-27 01:28:19
1
hbichiclothing
H_Bichi_Clothing :
👍🏻
2026-04-26 21:34:44
1
elnazeersalisu30
Nazeer Salisu :
👍👍👍
2026-05-05 15:46:55
0
c..t..r..d2
C. T. R. D2 :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-05-10 19:33:02
0
fadialadiabate223
fadialadiabate :
💯💯💯
2026-05-15 00:28:20
0
nurudeenkandakpeli
kandakpeli @gmail .com0055 :
❤️❤️❤️
2026-05-30 06:36:39
0
danny58995
Danny😎 :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-05-15 01:10:04
0
abu_ammar_clothing
A²K CLOTHING 👑 :
😁😁😁
2026-05-04 21:49:37
0
hamedpoma
hamedpoma :
🌹🌹🌹
2026-06-01 20:01:43
0
masta.ali.hamza
Masta ali Hamza :
🥰
2026-04-30 22:32:34
0
makansanogo599
OG coutouré :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-04-27 18:44:29
1
To see more videos from user @sarkiclothing01, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

bradar what is this • (might repost idk) 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. 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. #truecringecomunnity #fyp #actor #51 #larp
bradar what is this • (might repost idk) 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. 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. #truecringecomunnity #fyp #actor #51 #larp

About