@milanasarenac: Things no one wants to hear about sales but NEED to 🙌🏼 #salestips #salestraining #salescoach

Milana Sarenac |Sales Training
Milana Sarenac |Sales Training
Open In TikTok:
Region: AU
Wednesday 01 July 2026 10:17:44 GMT
2051
165
57
8

Music

Download

Comments

sylporapa
Penanu :
Substack
2026-07-06 09:10:43
1
khadijahsells
Khadijah | High Ticket Sales :
Substack
2026-07-02 14:06:24
1
_yhunice_
E.U👑 :
Substack
2026-07-06 07:34:49
1
sands19691
Sandra T :
Substack🙏
2026-07-05 19:20:39
1
gayle_81
Abby :
Substack
2026-07-04 20:49:58
0
user910644943
Ahmed :
substack
2026-07-17 04:31:23
0
micclemymathabza
Cleemy m :
Substance
2026-07-02 10:35:41
0
0707150632.violabae
violabae143 :
substack
2026-07-01 13:09:23
0
khuvenisipula
khuvenisipula :
Substac
2026-07-01 18:02:44
0
ally53764
Ally :
Substack 🥰
2026-07-06 09:51:25
0
yashashreefawziy9
QUEEN 👑 :
substack
2026-07-02 10:09:36
0
leesccvxx14
blessing136 :
substack
2026-07-04 18:44:22
1
themineralmom
ADHD Teens-Root Cause-Minerals :
Substack
2026-07-01 10:42:19
0
justin_okoye
justinokoye :
Substack
2026-07-01 13:29:46
0
miss.donnarepuesto
Miss Donna- Finance & Events :
Substack
2026-07-02 09:46:30
0
fmnphoto
Francesca :
Substack
2026-07-01 13:07:18
0
mphoentlekbw
MphoentleBW :
substack
2026-07-02 06:06:13
0
muhelink
muhelink :
substack
2026-07-01 10:46:44
0
aamepaterson
not to thick :
substack
2026-07-23 02:09:24
0
melissaannjaramillo
Melissa 🐚 hair + lifestyle :
Substack
2026-07-17 02:17:17
0
heph_zibah_
queen hephzibah :
substack
2026-07-09 20:56:37
0
ogchickflicks
OGchickflicks :
Substack
2026-07-07 19:44:57
0
joyjoymuntz
joyjoymuntz :
Substack
2026-07-07 00:56:02
0
williamtay624
williamtay624 :
subtrack
2026-07-07 00:44:10
0
hope_424sznn
Simplyhope😊 :
Substack
2026-07-02 10:28:40
0
To see more videos from user @milanasarenac, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Remember lads, join the literature club - 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. #tcc #brentotarrant #sayori #christchurch #fyp
Remember lads, join the literature club - 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. #tcc #brentotarrant #sayori #christchurch #fyp

About