I read about Graham number and TREE(3).
Graham number is: $f^{64}(4)$ where $f(n)=3\uparrow^n 3$

My question is: If there is a way to write TREE(3) via $f^a(b)$?
(and of course $f(n)$ can be different, but at the form of: $ x\uparrow^yz $)

Thank you!

  • 1
    To clarify : Do you mean the pure existence of such a number $a$ , or that a "reasonable-sized" $a$ does the job ? – Peter Jun 24 at 12:45
  • 4
    Possible duplicate of explicit upper bound of TREE(3) – Carl Mummert Jun 24 at 12:46
  • Concerning the question whether we can hit $TREE(3)$ EXACTLY , this is currently unknown and might never be known. But I agree to Arthur that chances are almost $0$ that a function of the kind you want does, unless you start with $TREE(3)$ which would however be "cheating" – Peter Jun 24 at 12:58
  • Not sure about whether hyperoperation is an appropriate tag here. But number theory certainly isn't. – Jyrki Lahtonen Jun 24 at 17:11
up vote 1 down vote accepted

No, $TREE(3)$ is in a completely different league. Graham's number has level $f_{\omega+1}$ in the fast-growing hierarchy, $TREE(3)$ is far beyond level $f_{\Gamma_0}$

So, the index $a$ in the function you want to arrive at $TREE(3)$ would be indistinguishable of $TREE(3)$ itself.

  • Sorry for the question, but what is $f_{\Gamma_0}$? I try to find the answer here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-growing_hierarchy but I didn't found.... Thank you!! – CS1 Jun 24 at 13:00
  • Check for example Saibians site : sites.google.com/site/largenumbers/home – Peter Jun 24 at 13:02
  • The next major milestone above $f_{\omega}$ is $f_{\omega^2}$ , which grows like a Conway chain of $n$ $n's$ , then it continues to $f_{\omega^\omega}$ and so on until we arrive at $f_{\epsilon_0}$ which is nothing compared to $f_{\Gamma_0}$ – Peter Jun 24 at 13:04
  • You mean this: sites.google.com/site/largenumbers/home/4-2 ? – CS1 Jun 24 at 13:05
  • 1
    Yes, this is exactly the chapter you can read to get a feeling for the fast growing hierarchy. – Peter Jun 24 at 13:07

The numbers of the form $x\uparrow^y z$ are quite sparse. So while it's definitely possible to write a number larger than TREE(3) that way (not physically in our universe, but mathematically possible), I sincerely doubt any of them are equal to TREE(3).

  • I understand. We can also find $a,b$ such that: $a+b>TREE(3)$, but we can't write them at our universe :-) But you answer my question because when you wrote: ...not physically in our universe... - This what I look for! – CS1 Jul 23 at 11:37

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.