@satou_bamby: C’est avec une immense joie que je vous présente aujourd'hui mon audition à l'aveugle à The Voice Afrique Francophone. 🎶 Je suis tellement reconnaissante de faire partie de cette magnifique aventure humaine et musicale. Un grand merci pour votre soutien qui me va droit au cœur , et que l'aventure commence ! ❤️✨#tiktoksenegal🇸🇳 #tiktokcotedivoire🇨🇮 #thevoiceafriquefrancophone #debloquemesvue🥲🙏🏽 #videoviral Je ne possède aucun droit sur cette vidéo. Tous les droits sont réservés à Canal+

satou _Bamby singer🎤🇸🇳
satou _Bamby singer🎤🇸🇳
Open In TikTok:
Region: SN
Saturday 04 July 2026 00:16:38 GMT
70201
8099
271
73

Music

Download

Comments

ouly10
Ouly Ouly🎤 :
Soutenons la ma Bamby d’amour 🥺❤️🫂
2026-07-04 01:50:56
416
habyeva
biba :
J’adore la version mbalakh 💃🏼💃🏼💃🏼
2026-07-04 10:28:27
220
bibofaye5
Bibo faye :
Wonderful ❤️❤️
2026-07-04 12:58:45
3
minalavoile230
minalavoilée230 :
C’est le Sénégal qui gagne 💕🔥
2026-07-04 12:49:38
104
alimah0471
Alimah❤️04🎉 :
Na viral 😌au moins beineu victoire
2026-07-04 17:19:05
50
zeyglam8
Zeyglam :
Belle performance en plus tu es charismatique mashaAllah ❤️nous allons tous te soutenir ma belle
2026-07-04 10:05:30
83
moussa7982
Moussa Lo bou cheikh omar sy :
tout le Sénégal est derrière toi du courage Bamby Sénégal rek 🥰🥰🥰🥰
2026-07-04 11:08:04
14
aichh.bb
𝒜𝒾𝒸𝒽𝒶 ✰🫦 :
J’ai aimé ta voix et comment tu t’es approprié la chanson ❤️❤️
2026-07-04 12:52:12
18
evaaaa_277
evaaaa_🧜🏾‍♀️💜🇸🇳 :
C pas Bamby qui était dans la série Bakary Taximan ? Sinon tu es une belle voix mashallah ça donne des frissons 🥹❤️
2026-07-04 15:58:59
27
linguerefatma77
Linguère fatma :
Allahouma barick machallah ❤️
2026-07-04 11:52:44
9
kya_sow1
kya_sow🇸🇳 :
Hé li neekh na waay🥰🥰🥰 bonne chance Bamby✌🏽
2026-07-04 10:27:33
26
fatelfearless
🌸FATEL fearless 🎙️🌸 :
Bonne chance à toi ma chérie 🫂🥳🤝
2026-07-04 11:51:04
8
benart98
benart98 :
Nice interprétation,Felicitations et bonne chance pour la suite
2026-07-04 00:49:31
16
queridabasse
QUERIDA BASSE :
Goné gui ya meune ❤️❤️
2026-07-04 12:35:36
8
papisco_artist
papisco_artist_l'officiel :
Respect ❤️🎤✌️🫡
2026-07-04 16:52:09
1
dominiquacaeciliadiabaye
🌟Dominique 🦋🌿 :
Original ❤️🔥
2026-07-04 10:07:49
1
alviny_ronny
🅐🅛🅥🅘🅝🅨⬤🅡🅞🅝🅝🅨🎤🇸🇳 :
Dama contane ci yaw bilahi tu nous a rendu fier❤️❤️❤️
2026-07-04 17:02:43
19
benalove13
La Natya ❤️ :
ohhh lala ma belle🥰 j ai adoré ta prestation .merci pour la representation , de tout coeur avec toi♥️go Gaindé🇸🇳❤️
2026-07-04 09:58:57
20
dijababy971
Hadeejah :
Le premier coatch🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
2026-07-04 12:14:25
8
user1690335713421
user1690335713421 :
tu chantes tres bien on te soutient à 1000000%
2026-07-04 11:21:15
8
timfa_zahra
Timfa Sira 🍃🌹 :
Tu as du talent 😍😍
2026-07-04 02:07:20
6
babybousso
babybousso :
Nekhna dh
2026-07-04 09:56:47
20
fatalblackgirl
🌸Fatal🫦 🅱️lack🍫girl🦋🫧♐️ :
Je t’es suivie j’étais tellement fière et contente 🥰bonn continuation
2026-07-04 01:47:15
20
To see more videos from user @satou_bamby, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

wow him got 21 man hug happy ♥️🌹  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 such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much, much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. 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.#mlg #rampage #fyb #tcceditstyle #tccedit
wow him got 21 man hug happy ♥️🌹 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 such as Skewes's number and Moser's number, both of which are in turn much, much larger than a googolplex. As with these, it is so large that the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. 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.#mlg #rampage #fyb #tcceditstyle #tccedit

About