## this bigger than grahams number?

Octation is a binary function - assuming you meant googolplexian octated to the googolplexian, that is larger than G1, but smaller than G2.

G1 is 3^^^^3, i.e. 3 hexated to the 3.
G2 is 3^^^...^3 with G1 ^'s, so it is 3 "G1 + 2"ated to the 3. Note that even 3 nonated to the 3 is larger than googolplexian octated to the googolplexian, so G2 is MUCH larger than your number.

G3 is 3^^^....^3 with G2 ^'s, so it is 3 "G2 + 2"ated to the 3.
and so on.

Graham's number is G64.

 Quote by acabus Stop it. You're absolutely unimaginably nowhere near Graham's number, and it's pointless to try and come up with a larger number.
Really? Surely you can't mean *exactly* what you said. :)

It seems trivial to come up with a number larger than Graham's Number. Of course, I understand what you mean, though.
 I got some numbers way bigger than Grahams puny number done with Conway's arrows. 10^100→10^100→... a Googol times over which = 1 HyperGoogol and each HyperGoogol is like the number before it inside each bit of the chain that many times over on the Conway chain. This my friends is the place where you find numbers which can only be described by us mere mortals as silly numbers. A Googol Hypergoogol's Is like flashing up the digits of this number part by part with the whole visible universe with transistors working at the plank length until the whole visible Universe around this visible universe you've turned into a computer is one big elephant simply because of the probability that it could become that and still having more digits to count. It's just plain silly.

Mentor
 Quote by Robert1986 It seems trivial to come up with a number larger than Graham's Number. Of course, I understand what you mean, though.
It is easy if you use notations with a similar power (e. g. G65 is larger than G64, of course, and GG64 is even larger) or even more powerful notations (Conway chained arrows).

It is not easy if you try to come up with something similar yourself.
Every tower of exponents (without more powerful definitions inside) is tiny compared to G1, and it is completely pointless to use those towers once you have Gn or conway arrows. G64G64 < G65, and that holds even if you build some large tower of exponents on the left side.

 Quote by Deedlit fuga(n) = (...((n^n)^n)...^n)^n with n n's = n^(n^(n-1)) < n^(n^n). So fugagargantugoogolplex < gargantugoogolplex ^ (gargantugoogolplex ^ gargantugoogolplex) = 10^10^10^10^100^(10^10^10^10^100^(10^10^10^10^100)) = 10^10^10^10^100^(10^10^(10^10^100 + 10^10^10^100)) = 10^10^(10^10^100 + 10^(10^10^100 + 10^10^10^100)) < 10^10^10^(1 + 10^10^100 + 10^10^10^100)) < 10^10^10^10^10^10^101 < 3^3^3^3^3^3^3^3^3 = 3^^9,
This is wrong because you assumed "a gargantugoogolplex raised to a gargantugoogolplex a gargantugoogolplex times" to be "a gargantugoogolplex raised to the power of a gargantugoogolplex, raised to the power of a gargantugoogolplex". A gargantugoogolplex raised to the power of a gargantugoogolplex a gargantugoogolplex times = gargantugoogolplex^^gargantugoogolplex, = (10^10^10^10^100)^^(10^10^10^10^100) = (10^10^10^10^100)^((10^10^10^10^100)^(10^10^10^10^100)). MUCH larger than your 3^^9. however, it is still absolutely incomprehensibly smaller than Graham's number.