@czgvu: TRƯỜNG TH PHỦ LÝ✈️✈️. Đi quay trường tiếp nha ae🔥#flycam #djI #afftereffects #l600promax #tieuhoc

CƯỜN ✈️

Open In TikTok:

Region: VN

Wednesday 29 April 2026 15:19:56 GMT

22549

709

125

396

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (12.53MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (9.76MB) Watermark .mp4 (13.56MB) Music .mp3

Comments

muốn ngủ 💤 :

tôi ở phủ lý chục năm nay chưa nghe cái trng phủ lý nào cả

2026-07-21 09:30:02

4

batman🦇🦇🦇 :

ê có trg phủ lý à ko bt luôn

2026-07-18 16:22:27

18

D-N-K💝💝💝 :

có luôn hả

2026-07-21 05:14:44

2

Null Scape :

tỉnh nào vậy tus

2026-07-19 16:17:17

0

hằng nga (」ﾟﾛﾟ)｣🖕🏻😆 :

trường thcs phù vân ik ạ

2026-07-19 04:39:24

2

Heo🐽Skeleton👼🏻 :

Làm trường lhp đi ạ

2026-07-21 03:56:42

0

Kiều lương tâm :

trong này buổi chiều đá bóng nhiều lắm

2026-04-30 12:48:15

5

Lại Duyên :

mình ở Thái Nguyên🥰

2026-05-18 13:54:19

1

Lương Huế Huế :

Cho c xin video nhé. Cảm ơn em.

2026-04-30 00:13:49

6

nhi chos dien? :

Mong xh 💗

2026-04-30 08:58:52

2

khuongtu :

trường này rộng phết

2026-05-04 16:45:55

0

ᚠᚺᚨᚾᚨᚾᚺᛏᚨᛁ :

TH Ôn Lương ik

2026-05-03 13:38:41

1

tdat:) :

Bao giờ mới đến TH Ôn lương vậy trờu

2026-05-02 04:22:04

0

🐻 :

trường THCS vô tranh thái nguyên đi ạaaa

2026-04-30 11:46:29

2

{hương xinh} :

quay lúc nào đấy

2026-04-30 03:46:48

1

Mace :

cảm ơn anh ạ

2026-05-06 06:20:35

1

săn idol và săn mây >_< :

cảm ơn anh

2026-05-01 01:23:44

3

Nguyễn Lãm :

Check ib a cái e ơi

2026-06-23 15:23:33

1

𝘯𝘰𝘤୨ৎ :

edit đỉnh đấy😭

2026-04-30 02:47:16

1

Lục Vạn Niên_212 :

Trường mầm non được ké khung hình🤣

2026-04-30 04:38:13

2

Bảo Ngọccc :

TH Dương Tự Mình đi ạ

2026-04-30 00:30:42

2

𝒯𝒽𝓊 𝒯𝒽ủ𝓎𝓎💤 :

Triệu viuuui lun😁

2026-04-30 03:06:22

2

Huan nee :

Trường tiểu học Ôn lương ik anh

2026-04-29 16:00:51

2

Ziny và bí bắp ngô 💗 :

Trường mik à😳

2026-04-30 04:33:32

3

Títt :

ê vip thế m, lâu lắm t không vào đến đấy luôn đấy😆

2026-04-29 15:53:47

2

To see more videos from user @czgvu, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

For my girls 🫶🏻 #relatable #SelfCare #success #womanboss #womanpower

For my girls 🫶🏻 #relatable #SelfCare #success #womanboss #womanpower

Aperitivo de boteco

Aperitivo de boteco

$My cousin Omar dancing outside his local Nightclub in Orlando || ib: SINISTER.RAY and Alexander.sovice || 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. #fyp #rampage #omarmateengaming #tcc #fypppppppppppppp$
My cousin Omar dancing outside his local Nightclub in Orlando || ib: SINISTER.RAY and Alexander.sovice || 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. #fyp #rampage #omarmateengaming #tcc #fypppppppppppppp

They said Part 1 was bold… so here’s Part 2. No privacy. No secrecy. No games. Marriage outranks friendships, kids don’t come before us, and respect is non-negotiable. Modern culture hates these rules — but that’s exactly why our marriage works. If this makes you mad, maybe it’s because deep down… you know it’s true. 👀💍

They said Part 1 was bold… so here’s Part 2. No privacy. No secrecy. No games. Marriage outranks friendships, kids don’t come before us, and respect is non-negotiable. Modern culture hates these rules — but that’s exactly why our marriage works. If this makes you mad, maybe it’s because deep down… you know it’s true. 👀💍

" A Cyppher caiu mais estamos de volta no telegram " #telegram #Cyppher #grupo

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy