urrapetito
Region: ES
Sunday 30 August 2026 21:08:01 GMT
566058
67635
616
9852
Music
Download
Comments
Anuaka :
Qué maravilla, nunca voy a hacer nada pero me encanta verlo😉
2026-08-30 22:02:19
2305
Black_M5 :
Y uno aqui tirando la puerta que dice empuje
2026-08-30 21:43:54
389
Mervin Loyo :
5 días después? ... veni al Zulia en minutos están listos ...😂
2026-08-31 18:04:49
64
Linsy Ortix :
Voy a guardar el vídeo para no hacerlo
2026-08-31 10:21:11
83
yesenia :
Will be doing this next year, I need a garden
2026-08-31 20:53:42
0
Guided Catholic Prayers :
Do I understand the language NO,have I watched till the end ABSOLUTELY!!
2026-09-01 11:10:04
0
Eburi :
Me gusta cuando se ha ofendido él solo con lo de los pimientos (te entiendo)
2026-08-30 21:57:03
133
Sevenforns :
SOS crack.
2026-09-01 18:40:29
0
Arislexsa Orta Barre :
Yo realizó, adobo casero con todas las semillas y cáscaras de las hortalizas 🥰 acumulo secando a diario, luego cuando tengo suficiente lo paso por el horno al mínimo durante 10 minutos y con la máquina de moler maíz, paso todo. Le coloco ajo molido, orégano, paprika y listo 👍 muy rico para carnes, pollo, pescado 🥰. Bendiciones
2026-08-31 14:31:33
24
Gabriela :
Yo me casaría contigo, pero creo que soy un poquito mayor para ti. De hecho, creo que podría ser tu madre 😂. Pero mi hija tiene 30 años, estudió cocina, le encanta cocinar y, además, tiene la carrera universitaria de Nutrición y Dietética. Así que… ¿podríamos hacer algo entre los tres? 😂
2026-08-31 00:10:27
20
Neni :
Que belleza lo que haces! Que tipo de licuadora es con la que mueles?
2026-08-31 00:00:12
21
愛 :
oye yo soy canario y no los tengo como cherrys
2026-08-30 21:17:19
60
aldebaran :
Parece que estuvieras enfadado con la vida 🥰🥰🥰
2026-08-30 21:28:33
30
JT :
Eso así no debe conservar todas sus propiedades
2026-08-30 23:57:53
3
Anita 🪻🪻 :
Disculpa, no le salen hongos durante el periodo de secado? , como evitas las hormigas?
2026-08-31 20:01:08
1
J.I.I.E :
pero no tienen él mismo sabor, q él de los de supermercados
2026-09-01 07:02:17
1
la niña :
cuanto dura ?
2026-08-30 23:48:27
5
Juan Pablo :
el tomate desidratado en qué lo usas ?
2026-08-30 23:26:02
2
pablored71 :
eres un crack haciendo videos, me encanta como explicas
2026-08-31 17:00:52
9
Osima83 :
pocos seguidores tienes para lo bueno que eres👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
2026-08-30 22:46:49
11
Yamil.jose.A. 99. :
saludos exelente me gusta eso p negocio! y cuánto tiempo puede durar..osea q no se dañe 🤔???
2026-08-30 23:39:40
2
Paz y Amor✝️♥️ :
Genial
2026-09-01 17:54:27
1
Carlota de Berbel :
👍
2026-08-31 12:34:50
1
cartuchonegro06 :
Me comí todo el video, me interesa, pero creo que no lo intentaré más adelante posiblemente qué bueno. Felicidades
2026-08-31 17:18:18
3
To see more videos from user @urrapetito, please go to the Tikwm
homepage.
![Graham's number is a very large 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 #hERo #elliot #rogger #ER #iqmaxx](/video/cover/7680590749150235937.webp)
