Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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



Am I understanding correctly we don't know how large TREE(3) is?


I've only ever seen lower bound values given.

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




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: