@ceditssqq: aweee #fyp #like #edit #thenotebook #creatorsearchinsights

callie basil

Open In TikTok:

Region: US

Monday 20 July 2026 01:26:38 GMT

964478

257070

754

14417

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (0.72MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (0.72MB) Watermark .mp4 (1.55MB) Music .mp3

Comments

bellabellabellaablahhh😎 :

wait everyone go use chat gpt so we can die faster

2026-07-28 16:23:52

10545

Katieee🍄🍃✨ :

Come home baby.. your daughter and I miss you and our family..

2026-07-27 17:21:14

3564

Jjay🕷️🕸️ :

off topic why was she running so much in this movie it was frying me

2026-07-29 19:15:31

571

terezka💗 :

that type of men doesnt exist in this generation..

2026-08-03 21:51:51

35

masked :

I was his martha

2026-07-23 00:19:19

189

Zay :

horror movie btw 🫩✌🏽

2026-08-01 02:56:15

97

Joey :

Should I send this to my ex?

2026-07-24 04:47:22

95

laylaarose._ :

Man I miss my baby

2026-07-29 19:44:51

12

s💌 :

i am the girl version of noah

2026-07-28 06:26:25

43

𝓳𝓸𝓻𝓭𝔂𝓷 𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓲𝓻𝓮 :

“so its not gonna be easy, its honna be really hard.. and were gonna have too work at this everyday, but thats okay because i want you, i want all of you, forever, you and me everyday”.

2026-07-28 00:24:57

31

gizelle :

oh i’m not hungry.

2026-07-29 03:35:00

10

? :

He was my everything even we didn’t dated but it felt like we did

2026-07-28 05:17:54

38

⋆˚𖤓☽˚.⋆𝓝𝓪𝓽𝓪𝓵𝓲𝓮⋆˚₊𖤓☽˚ :

This movie RUINED me

2026-07-28 15:25:23

65

￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ ￴ :

Aniyah just one more time please.

2026-07-29 16:44:04

35

Mrs.Hibiscus🌺 :

Please come back. I want you. I miss you and god I just wanna be in your arms again.

2026-08-01 21:22:05

9

itsur_girl_ari :

how he sounded before he ripped my heart into complete shreds

2026-08-02 00:07:33

6

🧄 :

:( i moved across country

2026-07-30 06:26:56

5

🦄🦄 :

2026-07-28 03:11:46

29

pdizzle𓏲ּ𝄢 :

can somebody kill me

2026-07-29 04:53:56

15

spamaccount19790 :

i know ur in there somewhere

2026-07-28 15:36:30

51

Brooklynn Box :

i miss my family so fucking much. me & sammy miss you so much baby, please come back to us. i’m sorry i fucked it up

2026-07-30 01:16:28

16

🎸😽ᘜꙆᘜꙆ😽🎸 :

@him

2026-07-27 06:42:47

30

notenoughhead11 :

Do I send this to my ex..?

2026-07-29 00:14:51

73

To see more videos from user @ceditssqq, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

#fyp @Goat2hus

: "anh chạ iu em" cutee thee 😆😆 @quoc lam @hạt hướng Dương xhh @TikTok #CapCut #fyp #viraltiktok #monggkhonggflop #xhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

#prikoluz #😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

#prikoluz #😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

パート 101 | サーモンおにぎりを世界のアレンジで爆食い😋🍣#mukbang #asmr #salmon #onigiri #飯テロ

パート 101 | サーモンおにぎりを世界のアレンジで爆食い😋🍣#mukbang #asmr #salmon #onigiri #飯テロ

SO CALL OUT MY NAME CHAN😩💔 #bangchan #chan #straykids #skz #kpop #edit #fyp #korea Bang Chan edit kpop edit stray kids edit

SO CALL OUT MY NAME CHAN😩💔 #bangchan #chan #straykids #skz #kpop #edit #fyp #korea Bang Chan edit kpop edit stray kids edit

$Edit of my Doctor 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. #ihatetbb #iqmaxx #tiktok$
Edit of my Doctor 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. #ihatetbb #iqmaxx #tiktok

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy