قناة الرابعة TV
Region: IQ
Monday 13 July 2026 16:01:36 GMT
147327
8107
102
226
Music
Download
Comments
7SV. 🇦🇪 :
ترجع بل سلامه سيادت الرئيس
2026-07-13 16:58:52
64
علي ☯️ :
من العدس إلى واشنطن
2026-07-13 16:51:20
21
nasart :
يمه يمه آلف الحمدلله والشكر على سلامتك حبيب شعب العراق ٤٥ مليون قلوبنا معك يالغالي علاوينه العزيز. ام علي
2026-07-13 17:19:16
17
عزوز :
سوال يكول احنا خلصنا حياتنا من نسافر لمكان بعيد ننزل ترانزيت ب احد دول ونصعد بغير طيارة شلون هاي طيارة استمرت من مطار بغداد الى مطار واشنطن
2026-07-13 17:14:46
7
محمد عباس :
لا ربح جثير
2026-07-13 18:47:41
3
أبريل :
سلملي
2026-07-13 16:46:17
1
zainab :
هلا برفعة الرأس سيدي فخامة الرئيس ربي يحفظك 🙏🌹
2026-07-13 17:21:47
5
مصطفى :
ترجع بسلامه سيادت الرئيس
2026-07-13 17:00:22
2
ياسر :
حمد الله على سلامه
2026-07-13 16:47:21
1
رضا عبد :
اول
2026-07-13 16:11:24
0
Ali al-Halbousi ⭐😜 :
اول
2026-07-13 16:06:23
0
ﹾ٭ﹾ🇮🇶 :
الله يوفقه💙
2026-07-13 19:10:25
0
MORTADA™🇮🇶 :
ان شاء الله اكو خير
2026-07-13 22:03:08
0
.... :
حي الله الريس
2026-07-13 20:06:38
0
To see more videos from user @alrabiaatv, 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 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. Context edit Example of a 2-colored 3-dimensional cube containing one single-coloured 4-vertex coplanar complete subgraph. The subgraph is shown below the cube. This cube would contain no such subgraph if, for example, the bottom edge in the present subgraph were replaced by a blue edge – thus proving by counterexample that N* > 3. Graham's number is connected to the following problem in Ramsey theory: Connect each pair of geometric vertices of an n-dimensional hypercube to obtain a complete graph on 2n vertices. Colour each of the edges of this graph either red or blue. What is the smallest value of n for which every such colouring contains at least one single-coloured complete subgraph on four coplanar vertices? In 1971, Graham and Rothschild proved the Graham–Rothschild theorem on the Ramsey theory of parameter words, a special case of which shows that this problem has a solution N*. They bounded the value of N* by 6 ≤ N* ≤ N, with N being a large but explicitly defined number N = F 7 ( 12 ) = F ( F ( F ( F ( F ( F ( F ( 12 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , {\displaystyle N=F^{7}(12)=F(F(F(F(F(F(F(12))))))),} where F ( n ) = 2 ↑ n 3 #chud #chudjaks #patrick #aiactor #nohate](/video/cover/7661750614535326990.webp)
