@richrich7689: @๐Œ๐š๐ค๐ขโฅ แ‹จแ‰ฃแ‰ แ‹ฌแŠ“ แ‹จแˆชแ‰ฝแ‹ฌ แŒฃแ‰จแ‰‚ ๐€๐‘โƒ  แŠฅแˆ…แ‰ตแАแ‰ด แ‹จแŠ” แŠฉแˆˆแˆŠแ‰ต๐Ÿ‘ญ๐ŸŒ๐Ÿ’# #แŒ“แ‹ฐแŠแАแ‰ต_แŠฅแ‹แАแ‰ต_แแ‰…แˆญ_แŠฅแˆแАแ‰ตโค๐Ÿ‘ญ ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. ..แˆŸแ‰ฝ แŠจแˆ›แˆžแ‰ฑ แ‰ แŠแ‰ต๐Ÿ˜ญ๐Ÿค—๐Ÿ™Œ๐Ÿ™Œ

๐‘๐ข๐œ๐กโฅเผ„แ‹จแˆ…แ‰ท แŒ แ‰ฃแ‰‚โฅแญ„๐Ÿ…ก๏ธŽ&๐Ÿ…œ๏ธŽแญ„
๐‘๐ข๐œ๐กโฅเผ„แ‹จแˆ…แ‰ท แŒ แ‰ฃแ‰‚โฅแญ„๐Ÿ…ก๏ธŽ&๐Ÿ…œ๏ธŽแญ„
Open In TikTok:
Region: SA
Thursday 07 May 2026 00:48:00 GMT
29665
864
178
1193

Music

Download

Comments

.aa18416
แ‰ฒแ‰ฒ แ‹จ๐Ÿ…—แ‹ฉ แŠ แ‹ˆแˆ๐‘ ๐‘–๐‘ แ‹จแ‹ˆแ‹ตแˆžแ‰ธ๐Ÿ…๐Ÿ…œ๐Ÿ…จ๐Ÿ…ข :
แŠ แ‰ฆ แ‰ฐแ‹‰แŠ๐Ÿ’”๐Ÿฅบ?
2026-05-11 02:00:17
0
user63361475
๐Ÿ…ฃแАแŠแ‹ซแˆตแˆแŒคแ‹‹โžฐแ‰ƒแ‰ฅแŒฆแ‹‹๐Ÿค™ :
แˆกแˆกแˆกแˆคแˆคแˆค
2026-05-09 21:22:32
0
ksa.ksa8649
เผ„เผตอข๐Ÿ…ข๏ธŽแˆฐแ‰ซแˆซแ‹‹๐Ÿ’”_____แ‹ˆแ๐Ÿฆ…? :
แŠ แˆˆแˆžแ‰ผโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธ
2026-05-07 12:34:15
0
user1039327571716
แ‹ตแŠ•แŒแˆ˜แ…แŠ“แŠ›แ‹จ :
แ‹จแŠ”แˆแ‹ฉ๐Ÿฅบ๐Ÿฆ‹
2026-05-07 17:49:19
0
makiya829
๐Œ๐š๐ค๐ขโฅ แ‹จแ‰ฃแ‰ แ‹ฌแŠ“ แ‹จแˆชแ‰ฝแ‹ฌ แŒฃแ‰จแ‰‚ ๐€๐‘โƒ  :
แ‹จแŠ” แ‰ฐแˆแˆฐแˆŒแ‰ต๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€โค๏ธโ€๐Ÿ’‹โ€๐Ÿ‘ฉ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€โค๏ธโ€๐Ÿ’‹โ€๐Ÿ‘ฉ๐Ÿ‘ฉโ€โค๏ธโ€๐Ÿ‘ฉ
2026-05-07 02:59:04
0
3.sq_
๐„žโ‰›โƒแ‰ตแŠ•แˆฟโ—โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€๐„žโ‰›แˆซแ‹ซ โƒž๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡น :
แŠฅแŠ”แˆ แŠฅแ‰€แŠ“แˆˆแˆ แŠงแˆจ แˆแŠ• แ‹ญแˆปแˆ‹แˆ๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿคฃ
2026-05-07 19:48:04
1
kalkidan.tadesse10
โœบโƒŸ๐„žแŠ•แˆตแˆฏ๐Ÿฆ…โƒžแ‹จแŒ€แŒแŠ–แ‰น๐ŸฆโƒžแŠฅแˆ…แ‰ต๐Ÿ‘‘โœบโƒŸ๐Ÿ‡จ๐Ÿ‡ฌ :
แŠฅแŠ›แˆ› แ‰ฐแŒฃแˆ‹แŠ• แ‰ แ–แˆตแ‰ต แ‹จแ‰ฐแАแˆณ๐Ÿ˜ญ๐Ÿคฃ
2026-05-09 04:28:03
0
user2144281377561
โค๏ธโ€๐Ÿฉนแˆ™แŒซแ‹‹๐Ÿฅฑแˆซแ‹ซ๐Ÿคโ“‰๐Ÿซด๐Ÿฅ€๐ŸŒพ :
๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ˜แ‹จแŠ”แАแŒˆแˆญ
2026-05-07 08:38:08
0
s429341
๐Ÿ…ขแАแŠโžทแ‹ซแˆตแˆแŒคแ‹‹โžทแ‰‹แ‰ซแŒฅ๐Ÿ…—เผ„ ๐Ÿ…ขเผ„ ๐‘€๐‘ฆ sis :
แŠ แ‹ญแˆˆแ‹ซแ‰น
2026-05-07 00:58:35
0
rmywollo
Rehimaeshetu :
2026-05-13 08:54:49
0
ksa.ksa8649
เผ„เผตอข๐Ÿ…ข๏ธŽแˆฐแ‰ซแˆซแ‹‹๐Ÿ’”_____แ‹ˆแ๐Ÿฆ…? :
แŠ แ‹ญแˆˆแ‹จแ‰นโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธ
2026-05-07 12:30:20
0
ksa.ksa8649
เผ„เผตอข๐Ÿ…ข๏ธŽแˆฐแ‰ซแˆซแ‹‹๐Ÿ’”_____แ‹ˆแ๐Ÿฆ…? :
แˆฅแˆฅแ‰ด๐Ÿฅบโ™ฅ๏ธ
2026-05-07 12:33:29
0
ksa.ksa8649
เผ„เผตอข๐Ÿ…ข๏ธŽแˆฐแ‰ซแˆซแ‹‹๐Ÿ’”_____แ‹ˆแ๐Ÿฆ…? :
แˆแˆญแŒคโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธ
2026-05-07 12:34:23
0
ksa.ksa8649
เผ„เผตอข๐Ÿ…ข๏ธŽแˆฐแ‰ซแˆซแ‹‹๐Ÿ’”_____แ‹ˆแ๐Ÿฆ…? :
แ‹•แˆ…แ‰ดโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธ
2026-05-07 12:30:25
0
ksa.ksa8649
เผ„เผตอข๐Ÿ…ข๏ธŽแˆฐแ‰ซแˆซแ‹‹๐Ÿ’”_____แ‹ˆแ๐Ÿฆ…? :
แ‹จแŠ” แŠ•แŒแˆตแ‰ต๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’™๐Ÿ’™
2026-05-07 12:34:38
0
ksa.ksa8649
เผ„เผตอข๐Ÿ…ข๏ธŽแˆฐแ‰ซแˆซแ‹‹๐Ÿ’”_____แ‹ˆแ๐Ÿฆ…? :
แŠ แˆˆแˆœโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธโ™ฅ๏ธ
2026-05-07 12:30:14
0
makiya829
๐Œ๐š๐ค๐ขโฅ แ‹จแ‰ฃแ‰ แ‹ฌแŠ“ แ‹จแˆชแ‰ฝแ‹ฌ แŒฃแ‰จแ‰‚ ๐€๐‘โƒ  :
แŠ แˆˆแˆœโคโคโค
2026-05-07 02:57:20
0
makiya829
๐Œ๐š๐ค๐ขโฅ แ‹จแ‰ฃแ‰ แ‹ฌแŠ“ แ‹จแˆชแ‰ฝแ‹ฌ แŒฃแ‰จแ‰‚ ๐€๐‘โƒ  :
แˆ‚แ‹ˆแ‰ด๐Ÿ˜˜๐Ÿ˜˜๐Ÿ˜˜๐Ÿ’”๐Ÿ˜˜
2026-05-07 02:57:29
0
makiya829
๐Œ๐š๐ค๐ขโฅ แ‹จแ‰ฃแ‰ แ‹ฌแŠ“ แ‹จแˆชแ‰ฝแ‹ฌ แŒฃแ‰จแ‰‚ ๐€๐‘โƒ  :
แ‰…แ‰ฅแŒฅ แ‹จแˆแˆแ‰ฅแˆฝ๐Ÿค—
2026-05-07 02:58:15
0
makiya829
๐Œ๐š๐ค๐ขโฅ แ‹จแ‰ฃแ‰ แ‹ฌแŠ“ แ‹จแˆชแ‰ฝแ‹ฌ แŒฃแ‰จแ‰‚ ๐€๐‘โƒ  :
แ‹จแ‰ฅแ‰ปแ‹ฌโคโค
2026-05-07 02:57:37
0
makiya829
๐Œ๐š๐ค๐ขโฅ แ‹จแ‰ฃแ‰ แ‹ฌแŠ“ แ‹จแˆชแ‰ฝแ‹ฌ แŒฃแ‰จแ‰‚ ๐€๐‘โƒ  :
แ‹จแŠ” แˆดแ‰ตโฃ๏ธ
2026-05-07 02:58:30
0
s429341
๐Ÿ…ขแАแŠโžทแ‹ซแˆตแˆแŒคแ‹‹โžทแ‰‹แ‰ซแŒฅ๐Ÿ…—เผ„ ๐Ÿ…ขเผ„ ๐‘€๐‘ฆ sis :
แŠฅแˆ…แ‰ด
2026-05-07 00:58:43
0
To see more videos from user @richrich7689, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

#funny 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 numberโ€”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 โ‹… โ‹… โ‹… {\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 = { 3โ†‘โ†‘โ†‘โ†‘3,	 if  n=1  and 3 โ†‘ g n โˆ’ 1 3,	 if  nโ‰ฅ2.  {\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. #tnd #fyp #iqmaxx #fake
#funny 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 numberโ€”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 โ‹… โ‹… โ‹… {\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 = { 3โ†‘โ†‘โ†‘โ†‘3, if n=1 and 3 โ†‘ g n โˆ’ 1 3, if nโ‰ฅ2. {\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. #tnd #fyp #iqmaxx #fake

About