News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000. Parent comment

Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by IanCal on Sunday June 05, 2016 @02:20PM (#11842282)
TREE(3) is significantly larger, though the explanations as far as I've found them require understanding much more complicated maths than for Graham's number (at least, I can follow the explanation for Graham's number, but not TREE(3)).

The fun bit about TREE(3) is that the sequence TREE(1), TREE(2), TREE(3) goes :

TREE(1): 1

TREE(2): 3

TREE(3): explosion

n(4) is another fun one. n(3) is less than Graham's number, which itself is roughly A^64(4). n(4) is about A^A^(187196)(1)

http://everything2.com/title/TREE%25283%2529

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by iopq on Monday June 06, 2016 @12:10AM (#11844599)
Am I understanding correctly we don't know how large TREE(3) is?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:To approximate 52! by hand, compute 54! and divide by 3000 by nikbackm on Monday June 06, 2016 @01:47AM (#11844888)
I've only ever seen lower bound values given.

E.g. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/93828/how-large-is-tree3

[ Parent | on HN ]