How Vast Is Graham's Number Compared to Our Universe?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thetexan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around estimating the size of Graham's number, particularly G64, in comparison to the observable universe. Participants explore the implications of large numbers and the limitations of various notations, including Knuth's up-arrow notation, in representing such vast quantities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that a googol is vastly smaller than G1 and G64, using an analogy involving grains of sand filled with zeroes to illustrate the scale.
  • Another participant corrects the first by stating that a googol is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes, while a googolplex is a 1 followed by a googol of zeroes.
  • There is a contention regarding the estimation of the size of G1, with one participant asserting that the scale of up-arrow notation is often misunderstood and underestimated.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of exponential towers and suggests researching tetration as a starting point for grasping the concepts involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the scale of Graham's number and the appropriateness of analogies used to represent it. There is no consensus on the estimates provided, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct understanding of the magnitudes involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their estimates and understanding, particularly regarding the implications of up-arrow notation and the representation of large numbers.

thetexan
Messages
269
Reaction score
13
Wow. I started out thinking I might be able to estimate the size if Graham's number but I have reached my limit of effort.

After repeated work I believe I have gone part way.

Realize that the number is G64. I won't try to explain. Suffice it to say that Knuth's notation makes the logarithmic scale seem inconceivably inadequate to use as a reference.

Anyway. I read that if you fill the observable universe with grains of sand and on each of those grains use a microscope to write ten billion zeroes you would have the representation of a google. A Googol is incomprehensibly infinitesimal compared to G1 much less G64.

By my crude estimation you would need a sphere so large in scale to the observable universe as to be equal in ratio as a proton is to the observable universe filled with grains of sand each with 10 billion zeroes written on them to approximate a number roughly 3!4 shy of G1. (Up arrows). Also roughly equal to the US debt in 2030 by the way!

My head hurts to even try to finish G1. G64 is impossible.

tex
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Im sorry I meant ...3!3 shy of G4...
 
I screwed up again. Sorry. I meant 3!3 shy of G1 not G4.
 
A few things...

Please keep in mind that you can edit your posts, as opposed to replying over and over.

thetexan said:
Anyway. I read that if you fill the observable universe with grains of sand and on each of those grains use a microscope to write ten billion zeroes you would have the representation of a google. A Googol is incomprehensibly infinitesimal compared to G1 much less G64.
You mean a googolplex. A googol is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes. A googolplex is a 1 followed by a googol zeroes.

thetexan said:
By my crude estimation you would need a sphere so large in scale to the observable universe as to be equal in ratio as a proton is to the observable universe filled with grains of sand each with 10 billion zeroes written on them to approximate a number roughly 3!4 shy of G1.
No, your estimate is way off. You need to understand that up arrow notation is a lot more powerful than you think, and for many of those that first delve into the topic, they almost always vastly misunderstand and underestimate the sheer magnitude of up arrows. For starters, don't bother trying to represent their scale with "a grain of sand expanded to the universe, with all its grains of sand expanded into another universe, etc. etc. with every grain of sand having trillions of 0's on it". This operation of grains representing universes and grains in that universe representing another universe is simply multiplication. You need to up your game beyond exponentiation!

thetexan said:
My head hurts to even try to finish G1. G64 is impossible.
Yes, yes it is.

You need a firm grasp of exponential towers and their power, so just google tetration to begin with, and once you feel as though you understand that, then you're ready to move on further.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
19K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
11K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K