Clayton Tucker
Region: US
Saturday 08 August 2026 14:49:45 GMT
148125
24128
736
2649
Music
Download
Comments
Sean :
Texas sounds like the least Texas place in the USA these days 💀
2026-08-08 19:39:09
1200
Empress_jen :
It California it’s against the law to hold a council meeting outside the jurisdiction. Texas is corrupt af.
2026-08-08 15:20:07
5288
FEREGRINO :
That should be illegal, running from meeting with their constituents
2026-08-08 15:00:01
3675
RealRaymondArchie :
I GUARANTEE THAT MEETING was illegal. Review the city charter! I guarantee they have to have all meetings within a certain radius!
2026-08-08 16:43:50
1368
HAPA TEXAS :
Corruption in Texas? No way
2026-08-08 21:34:28
317
Jacob A. Gonzalez :
speaks volumes.
2026-08-09 23:53:14
0
mommaj9753 :
They have sold out to Elon and the tech people: it’s horrible
2026-08-08 15:54:23
135
Used :
So, “Good ol boys” ain’t so good 🤷🏼♂️
2026-08-09 05:01:21
0
DemiGoose :
They’re afraid of people mad about flock cameras and data centers and they ran *towards* Austin?
2026-08-08 17:00:18
218
greenmonster36 🇺🇸 🎣🏈🎮 :
TEXAS = CALIFORNIA
2026-08-09 22:52:59
0
astevo21 :
that bs should be illegal
2026-08-09 22:40:58
1
YoungxWolfx :
people were complaining that they could only fit like 30ish people in the city council room and were demanding they choose a venue big enough to support them but WHY the hell did the city plan it, IN ANOTHER CITY?!?! We have a convention center, could have used one of the schools while they are not in yet, WHY WOULD THEY DO IT IN ANOTHER CITY
2026-08-08 15:56:13
265
FrenchieHouseMafia :
That’s not a city council meeting if it’s not even in the city
2026-08-08 15:14:44
249
AJay Omit :
Nah, they were getting wine drunk on taxpayer funding
2026-08-08 18:47:05
64
Ferbert :
Guess what they voted for.
2026-08-09 17:00:35
1
✨🧿VEE🧿✨❌️ :
This is just wrong.
2026-08-09 10:52:24
1
user7546385287921 :
republicans don't care about everyday Texans
2026-08-08 17:44:17
8
volc7 :
how is that legal
2026-08-08 20:42:37
6
funky monkey :
it should be illegal for a town council to have meeting outside of the limits
2026-08-08 17:08:48
6
OllieMKE :
how the fuck is that legal
2026-08-08 22:44:51
23
Brandon Reprogle :
Glad people are finally exposing the corruption in Texas! In small towns they run rampant!
2026-08-08 19:24:05
21
Created With Purpose :
that should be illegal because the citizens should be able to attend
2026-08-08 19:00:35
8
Travis Unger :
It should be against the law to conduct city business outside of city limits for any reason.
2026-08-08 22:33:33
16
Shaun :
How is this even legal?
2026-08-08 16:28:22
299
BOOMINCHOOM :
Texas HAS TO VOTE PPL OUT
2026-08-08 21:53:47
7
To see more videos from user @claytontuckertx, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![#сатанизм #sinister #targetaudience #theisticsatanism 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 scienceMartin 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 FriedmanKruskal'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/7665867417058299143.webp)
