Jose Vizner
Region: ES
Tuesday 04 August 2026 09:43:43 GMT
105710
1937
100
392
Music
Download
Comments
Milo :
Ahora viene la lechuga asesina, lo q nos faltaba 🫣
2026-08-04 12:20:53
30
Javier perez :
y los politicos no les da ? 😅😅😅
2026-08-04 14:12:59
2
🌟 PerJus 🌟 :
no saben lavar la verdura! 😥
2026-08-04 10:16:54
26
ada :
aquí tenemos problemas kn los brocolis😂
2026-08-04 13:58:15
11
Tr0mpe4tor :
Cuando bajas los controles sanitarios…
2026-08-04 13:20:04
6
miguelón :
en eeuu hay menos controles...
2026-08-04 10:52:14
8
Manuarg1234 :
si fuese española ya la habrían cerrado, pero la empresa es americana.
2026-08-04 11:31:08
7
Albert :
Venga yaaa, ya tenemos bastante de cuentos de Salut
2026-08-04 14:40:46
1
MANOLO & BENITO TEAM :
DE DONDE PROCEDÍAN LAS LECHUGAS?
2026-08-04 11:36:43
1
maria gutierrez gonzalez :
Claro no tienen lo cuidados qe tenemos en España
2026-08-04 17:15:29
2
Alfons Miñarro :
Y no tendrá algo que ver los recortes en agencias estatales de control alimentario? Digo yo.
2026-08-04 18:30:01
2
angelarmedfish :
No estoy en peligro.
2026-08-04 16:26:31
2
Juanka :
Eso con un mcflurry no te pasa
2026-08-04 13:44:49
7
yassinovich22 :
E-COLI 🥺🥺
2026-08-04 13:08:00
1
1954 :
Adiós nacho abad
2026-08-04 17:01:30
0
David león :
hay que mandarlas a España.
2026-08-04 10:18:15
0
Lucalv :
jajaja, cuando un chaval entra en un sitio con una escopeta, abre los telediarios, esto......lo darán en 1 mes
2026-08-04 14:42:38
1
user6426684402057 aquiles :
Y como en México no hay eso si salió de México
2026-08-04 16:11:10
0
Manuarg1234 :
de donde son las lechugas?
2026-08-04 11:29:42
1
alexander :
2026-08-04 11:20:53
1
TRUQUII🧚🏻🧚🏻♀️🧚🏽♂️ :
Menos mal que no como lechuga
2026-08-04 13:07:57
1
D T1691 :
furia roja!
2026-08-04 11:49:22
1
Camille Lefebvre :
Esto es de hace mucho. Hay un reportaje al respecto en Netflix.
2026-08-04 13:51:20
1
gloria_gr74 :
cuidado con.lo que comemos
2026-08-04 19:47:47
0
Eti ✌️ :
Entre el sushi 🍱 lechuga 🥬 el pollo 🐓 los huevos 🥚 estamos hasta las pelotas 🥎
2026-08-04 21:37:37
1
To see more videos from user @josevizner, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![Request:@viv.371 My friend is dancing on a rainbow IB:@larp sinister . . . 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. 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. #rampage #tccc #truecringecomunnity #🍵🌊🌊 #vlad](/video/cover/7668041921163480352.webp)