Lionel SH
Region: BJ
Monday 06 July 2026 09:13:59 GMT
166942
26846
1231
391
Music
Download
Comments
Laris42 :
Pedri a eu la chance d’être comparé à Jude Bellingham
2026-07-06 09:20:25
648
𝕹𝖔𝖚𝖗𝖔𝖚~🌟𝖈𝖋𝖆~🦅 :
Voici un barcelonais honnête
2026-07-06 10:16:08
342
͒ :
c'est quoi la qualité de Pedri svp
2026-07-06 13:48:50
86
la vérité :
tu as bien parlé aujourd'hui j'aime la vérité 🥰
2026-07-06 12:23:44
64
paysan moderne :
je me désabonne
2026-07-06 09:25:08
60
salif331 :
Bellingham aime trop garder le ballon
2026-07-06 12:44:12
66
Sevi Junior Ekina :
mon frère tu vas perdre les abonnés Barcelonais
2026-07-06 14:44:46
16
Legentleman Judeb :
n'ecoutez pas Léonel hein , il dira encore le contraire lorsque pedri fera un bon match contre des faibles équipes
2026-07-06 09:43:08
33
Momo Le Caïman 🐊🇩🇪 :
Tu es trop direct mon vieux malgré que tu supportes le Barça 🙏🇨🇮
2026-07-06 09:17:14
46
@Afro-2A🇧🇯🇷🇺 :
Pedri est meilleur que lui , Contrôle tes émotions stp
2026-07-06 10:03:56
21
L’esprit ☠️🦅 :
Mais Pedri n’est pas un 10
2026-07-06 09:45:48
40
amar27~mollah🇹🇬 :
Intelligent 🧠
2026-07-06 10:53:30
9
barmou le brésilien :
je suis d'accord mon frère, mbappe se positionne très mal
2026-07-06 10:09:57
15
saliou DVG :
Je m’abonne maintenant à ton compte un faux part je me désabonne
2026-07-06 16:48:59
6
LÉO :
Lionel Bellingham en vrai n'est pas un milieu. c'est un attaquant
2026-07-06 10:09:54
7
Jules 228👍 :
Aujourd’hui tu as une vérité
2026-07-06 09:59:13
5
Fousseni Badiel :
donc c'est aujourd'hui tu as compris ça quoi , tu fais rire hein
2026-07-06 12:23:42
5
RECORD :
au moins toi tu dis la vérité
2026-07-06 09:18:52
7
catalantoujours 🇳🇮🇳🇮 :
Champion quelqu’un qui connaît réellement le football ne peut jamais comparé tout les milieux de terrain en général car chaque milieu de terrain a son rôle principal : par exemple Bellingham est un 10 c’est à dire un milieu offensif qui marque ou qui fait marquer contrairement à Pedri qui un milieu relayeur : meneur de jeux , celui qui organise le jeux ⁉️Du coup ils ont des impacts totalement différents.
2026-07-06 10:34:18
14
user5311024848137 :
tu n'as pas prononcé le nom de pedri hein
2026-07-06 09:21:02
8
Texasdaska🇨🇩🇨🇬 :
Beli est plus fort que tous les milieux barcelonais actuel
2026-07-06 09:18:02
14
Ismo :
Un bon match de Bellingham c'est qu'il est buteur et celà n'a rien d'étonnant vu qu'il est milieu offensif de métier mais vouloir le mettre au dessus des autres après un bon match c'est ça votre défaut
2026-07-06 13:44:23
1
brunojunior4543 :
Tu raconte n’importe quoi à cause de but ??
2026-07-06 15:38:10
4
léon :
tu as oublié les milieux de terrain du Barça ??
2026-07-06 15:09:51
2
Bamilojou Emiloose :
Bellingham est un monstre
2026-07-06 12:41:26
1
To see more videos from user @lionel.hls, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![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 abc⋅⋅⋅, 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 g64,[2] wheregn={3↑↑↑↑3,if n=1 and3↑gn−13,if n≥2. 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.](/video/cover/7659080717489556754.webp)
