Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 07:06:25 UTC No. 16591151

>>16591131
bout tree fiddy

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 23:09:56 UTC No. 16591943

it's not that big unless you write tree in caps, in which case it's bigger than [ math ] \mathrm {tree} ^{\mathrm {tree} ^{\mathrm {tree} ^{\mathrm {tree} ^{\mathrm {tree} ^{8}(7)}(7)}(7)}(7)}(7)[ /math ]

Anonymous at Wed, 19 Feb 2025 23:22:59 UTC No. 16591950

>>16591131
>How big is it exactly?
The Wikipedia entry can not do it justice.
It is that big.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 02:46:48 UTC No. 16592091

>>16591131
It's bigger than tree(2) but smaller than tree(4). A tighter bound would be (tree(3)-1, tree(3)+1)

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:24:46 UTC No. 16593313

>>16591131
it doesn't have a calculated value. all they know is it can't be infinite. literally no use for it anywhere.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:47:46 UTC No. 16593427

>>16593313
>it doesn't have a calculated value.
Most numbers don't.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 18:50:28 UTC No. 16593435

>>16593427
So it's not a number but a concept like zero or infinity

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 19:21:33 UTC No. 16593545

>>16593435
Oh, it's a number. More of a number than that hole in your heart where your dad used to be.

Anonymous at Thu, 20 Feb 2025 21:19:29 UTC No. 16593855

>>16593313
>literally no use for it anywhere
it can be discussed in high quality /sci/ threads and youtubers can make videos about it to sell t-shirts

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 03:22:23 UTC No. 16594374

>>16593435
Well, it's a number and it can be proven to not be infinite. It's just so big that if you were able to encode each digit of it with one atom, you'd need every atom in the observable universe many many times over.

Combinatorial explosion is really crazy stuff. It's super easy to accidentally walk into a "oh, shit that's definitely not possible" problem when you're trying to figure out the minimum number of combination of some things possible.

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:38:29 UTC No. 16594637

>>16591131
>yet another retard thinking some fringe notation is generally known
>waits for someone to ask him what the fuck this 'tree()' thingy actually is, just to call him an uneducated retard
I am a mathematician by education and trade, and I have never met this notation. why don't you hang yourself instead of posting this crap?

Anonymous at Fri, 21 Feb 2025 11:00:53 UTC No. 16594652

>>16591131
tree(1/3)
You may now kiss my feet