- #1

- 263

- 11

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

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: