petergracey
Region: US
Friday 31 July 2026 16:13:34 GMT
52991
2033
155
629
Music
Download
Comments
Jama s :
It POURED in Portland last night
2026-08-02 15:32:52
6
Dan :
what i don't understand.....them say there is a water shortage......where the water truck them get water fi sell....furthermore.....I see where a certain community right where the big wigs live up the road get water 2 times for the week while we up the stretch no get no water a month now.
2026-08-03 05:01:03
0
El chappo :
Water always deh a HOTEL
2026-08-01 02:01:52
132
Online Influencer :
10 years and the damb can't expand but them a build new parliament and new stadium.... not saying they are not good but those are not Priority
2026-08-01 21:04:47
0
travis_virgo :
Rain soon start fall, pray to GOD🙏 man have nothing to do with this... of course we can pray
2026-08-01 02:35:14
44
🅳🆁🅴 🄾🄽🅃🄷🄴🄳🅁🅄🄼🅂 :
If u have faith as small as a mustard seed u can move mountains
2026-08-01 12:34:51
32
1Cromaz🐝 :
Mi well wah september the raining month step in
2026-08-02 00:14:57
5
Sami :
you saying when pipe run dry ,there is a broken pipe right after you come out of Goshen St Elizabeth for weeks now and all you call NWC they can't reach all now
2026-08-03 14:11:15
0
nicholasrussell23 :
every year is the same thing.
2026-07-31 20:11:34
50
Lee🕷️ :
So why a tax payers it cost ? Amount a spring deh Jamaica how we go inna drought?
2026-07-31 23:21:47
16
marcia :
Rain a fall in some parish
2026-07-31 17:00:31
57
RandomAbuser :
we had a drought?
2026-08-02 10:43:47
1
1221 :
let's go deep u know if the people really want water dem can make it happen
2026-07-31 20:09:20
6
🇺🇸crazyone :
😂😂 Total control now politicians go slave Unu
2026-07-31 21:14:13
7
libra baby ♎💍❤️ :
where I live me no see no rain and we no have no water in the pipe 😭
2026-07-31 20:39:13
7
Nichoy :
Money making thing something Ina something 😏💔
2026-08-01 04:45:30
5
barushka :
agree with you. we have rivers and underground water sources not being properly utilized
2026-07-31 19:20:10
3
Nothingbeatsprayer :
Lord I pray you look down on us🥺
2026-08-01 18:47:26
2
BrooklynSlimgoodie :
They tun the wata off last night
2026-07-31 18:51:42
2
Good Energi :
problem being fix..supposedly permanently by next march
2026-08-01 16:06:15
2
✿problem :
my community face drought for over 50 years so dem affi just buy it
2026-08-01 02:04:58
4
Ddoll46 :
me a 50 an don't have running water
2026-08-01 19:53:08
2
Dermott Mckenziejeffery :
they or selling our water in battle
2026-07-31 18:28:36
3
To see more videos from user @petergraceypoet, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![The actor from Zero Day is dancing! cool movie, btw 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. #fyp #viral #zeroday #tcc #izhevsk btw btw btw btw btw btw](/video/cover/7662047161667882271.webp)
