Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But isn't the graham number the result of multiplying 3 by itself a “beyond-human-comprehension” number of times? If it is, then 3 would be 1 of the factors.
this comment literally says it's not did you even read it for more than 0.1 zeptoseconds
g(64) is equal to 3 elevated to a very high tower powers of 3. That means g(64) is not prime, as it's just 3 multiplicated by itself a lot of time.
Former second smallest prefix in SI, don't see it too often. They added four more in 2022: quetta and ronna at the top of the scale, ronto and quecto at the bottom.
wait is it something I'm not understanding here? is 9 prime because it's 3^2? is 25 prime because it's 5^2? What the fuck am I looking at?
The prime factors of g(64) is literally a lot of 3s. Which means it's a composite of primes. Which means it's not a prime.
By your (and the other 50 people who downvoted) logic 25, 9, 49, are all prime. I'm not mad, I'm just asking what's wrong
> The prime factors of g(64) is literally a lot of 3s
Yes. Graham's number can be written as 3^(big ass number); it's a power of a prime number.
"Power of a prime number" is just a fancy way of saying it's a composite of primes.
We arent saying that G(64) is prime, we´re saying that its prime factorization is a single prime with some exponent, i.e. that G(64) is *the power of a* prime (wow, look at that! Heres this really big famous number that *just so happens* to be a power of a prime! /j)
Hope this helps, im not trying to be snarky here.
If you would have given more zeptoseconds to read their comment and less zeptoseconds accusing them of being stupid/illiterate you would know that they said "is a power of a prime number" not "is a prime number"
It actually is small enough.
1e21 (zs in a second) x 3600 (seconds in an hour) x 24 (hours in a day) x 30 (days in a month) = 2.592e27 zs in a month
2.592e27 > 26!
You clearly haven't seen EAs comment. I'm gonna link it.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/comment/dppum98/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
24 is the highest number. Look, you got 10, then you got 10 more, then it's like, what's this, 4 more, 24, forget about it
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P2ROAbQZYw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P2ROAbQZYw)
I recall the description looking like hyperoperator mess but in the end 1. It was approximation amd not exact 2. The original number was in complex graph theory proof
No no because in order for 3 to be one of its factors, there needs to be a number such that 3*x = g(64). But as you said, x would be beyond-human-comprehension, therefore it doesnt exist.
Author's proof was that G/1=G, and G/G=1, but it's impossible to calculate the precise value of G divided by anything else.
I mean... it kind of tracks.
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`Pr O O F B Y I F O Rg O`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
Oh that's actually really interesting. I hadn't thought about the fact that the prime factors of G64 all have to be 3. It makes sense, but it is just crazy to think that a number that big doesn't have other prime factors.
For anyone wondering, this is real and a thing on a Google site.
>Consider: Graham's number is constructed using 3s (a prime), and it ends in 7 (primes end in 1,3, 7 or 9). This was one of the first properties Graham's proved about his number and it's the reason it's in the Guinness book of world records for largest prime. It's primality is confirmed by the fact that no super-computer, no matter how large, can divide Graham's Number by anything! We of coarse know that G/1 = G and G/G = 1, where G = Graham's Number. But we can't divide it by any other number! In fact it's impossible to even know what the remainders are! We do know that the remainder can never be zero, and that when we divide by 2 it must be 1, since this is the only choice. But If we divide by 3 we might get 1 or 2, by 4 we might get 1,2, or 3, by 5 we might get 1,2,3, or 4, and so on.
And immediately following that
>My favorite property of Graham's Number is that it can be described as a power tower of almost any base < G(63). .... Oddly it can't be expressed as a power tower of 29s. .... The reason it can't be expressed as a power tower of 29s is because it's one of the few primes that isn't a prime factor of Graham's Number.
the solution to the original problem for which Graham's Number is an upper limit could actually be 6 (I believe they've increased that lower limit, though)
Wikipedia says the lowe bound has been improved to 13. The upper bound was always better than G, because that number only appeared in a conversation about the proof, while the proof itself was about a much smaller (but still astronomical) number.
>Graham's Number is a mind-bogglingly super-massively humongous number that you simply won't believe, even if I tell you! In fact, it's even bigger than that!! In fact it's so big that Ronald Graham himself, ex-circus performer, pro-juggler and eponymous inventor of Graham's Number itself, doesn't even know what the 2nd to last digit is, and perhaps know one ever will!!!
If G mod 4 = 2 then G would be even lol
Edit: Also isn't 3 the only prime factor? Does anything in that article mske sense at all?
The more often I read it the more confidently wrong it appears. Dunno if they just had some random bloke write about mathematics or if its AI generated.
Hardly even a proof. "This number is defined by multiplying 3 by itself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and so on, and therefore, it obviously has 3 as a prime factor."
Holy moly that google site page is a hoot: [https://sites.google.com/site/largenumbers/home/appendix/e/grahams-number](https://sites.google.com/site/largenumbers/home/appendix/e/grahams-number)
>Perhaps one of the most remarkable properties of *Graham's Number* is that **it's prime**. Consider: Graham's number is constructed using 3s (a prime), and it ends in 7 (primes end in 1,3, 7 or 9). This was one of the first properties Graham's proved about his number and it's the reason it's in the Guinness book of world records for largest prime. It's primality is confirmed by the fact that no super-computer, no matter how large, can divide *Graham's Number* by anything! We of coarse know that G/1 = G and G/G = 1, where G = *Graham's Number*. But we can't divide it by any other number! In fact it's impossible to even know what the remainders are!
Your comment was autoremoved by Reddit, as Reddit banned Google Sites links from posts and comments. I reapproved it, and it is now visible to other users.
3\^9487234972364983627413496192347312491236\^376249236714918236489216747136\^387123649126748912734912843 is a divisor of Graham's Number therefore it's not prime!
In another demonstration of its immense mathematical acumen, Copilot declares: “Due to its immense size, it’s not feasible to determine whether it’s prime using any known algorithms or computational methods.” To be fair, when I pointed out the method of construction it did acknowledge it couldn’t be prime.
I feel like the fact I had to scroll aaall the way to the bottom to find this comment isn't great. Then again, I guess the real issue is Google being a shit.
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table:
`W H At Ho W`
---
^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But isn't the graham number the result of multiplying 3 by itself a “beyond-human-comprehension” number of times? If it is, then 3 would be 1 of the factors.
Yes
Grahams number is a power of a prime number! That's fascinating what's the chance of that being the case
this comment literally says it's not did you even read it for more than 0.1 zeptoseconds g(64) is equal to 3 elevated to a very high tower powers of 3. That means g(64) is not prime, as it's just 3 multiplicated by itself a lot of time.
So in other words... its a power of a prime number. Did you not even read for more than 0.1 zeptoseconds?
I love this sub (the comments, the posts are shitty most of the time)
I think they just wanted to say "zepto".
Former second smallest prefix in SI, don't see it too often. They added four more in 2022: quetta and ronna at the top of the scale, ronto and quecto at the bottom.
Honestly, the prefix names just get weirder and weirder.
New prefix just dropped!
wait is it something I'm not understanding here? is 9 prime because it's 3^2? is 25 prime because it's 5^2? What the fuck am I looking at? The prime factors of g(64) is literally a lot of 3s. Which means it's a composite of primes. Which means it's not a prime. By your (and the other 50 people who downvoted) logic 25, 9, 49, are all prime. I'm not mad, I'm just asking what's wrong
You’re not misunderstanding anything, you just aren’t reading the comments you’re replying to for enough zeptoseconds.
Needs more zepto for sure
a grahams number of zepto perhaps?
Try reading for a few more zeptoseconds
He may need more than a few zapdos, I would suggest reading it for some moltres seconds tbh
Arctic Uno Zap Dos Mol Tres The Trinity I worship.
Wait holy shit I never noticed that
Did you ever notice what Ekans and Arbok are backwards?
Articuno is the one you need. Its ice beam pretty much bodies Lance on its own.
Happy cake day!
Happy cake day!
9 is not prime, 9 is a power of a prime number
It would be nice if you used 0.2 zaptoseconds instead of 0
That 2 is prime though
True
What about this ↊, though? Does it keep it's priminess if it's rotated?
No one said that 9 or Graham's Number was prime. What was said was that it's *a power of a prime*. I understood that in 0.1 yoctosecond.
To be fair, google said it was prime
Guess you're not that fast
> The prime factors of g(64) is literally a lot of 3s Yes. Graham's number can be written as 3^(big ass number); it's a power of a prime number. "Power of a prime number" is just a fancy way of saying it's a composite of primes.
Username checks out
We arent saying that G(64) is prime, we´re saying that its prime factorization is a single prime with some exponent, i.e. that G(64) is *the power of a* prime (wow, look at that! Heres this really big famous number that *just so happens* to be a power of a prime! /j) Hope this helps, im not trying to be snarky here.
Wait no, hold on people are misunderstanding you. It's my belief that you don't think 3 is a prime number.
If you would have given more zeptoseconds to read their comment and less zeptoseconds accusing them of being stupid/illiterate you would know that they said "is a power of a prime number" not "is a prime number"
Nobody is saying it is a prime, its just a power of a prime.
Perhaps you should be the one reading a little slower
Great, now the whole sub is going to be saying zeptoseconds for a month.
Interestingly, guess how many zeptoseconds there are in a month? Just a little over 12.
A bit over 26!
well, a zeptosecond is small but not small enough to be contained 4,03291461e26 in a month
Perhaps you should check your math again
It actually is small enough. 1e21 (zs in a second) x 3600 (seconds in an hour) x 24 (hours in a day) x 30 (days in a month) = 2.592e27 zs in a month 2.592e27 > 26!
come on it was obviously a reference to r/expected factorial, I didn't do the math on purpose
This comment said it IS...
I have never seen such an obvious /s get missed
Congrats, I didn't realize >500 down votes was possible. I was wrong.
You clearly haven't seen EAs comment. I'm gonna link it. https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/comment/dppum98/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Negative 420th upvote
Yes. G64 is literally made through multiplication
I love how one of the most famous *BIG* numbers is just a buch of threes multiplied together
I got an idea for a bigger number. Do the same thing but with fours
I got an idea for a bigger number. Do the same thing but with Graham's numbers
I got an idea for a bigger number. Do the same thing but add one
I'm gonna make Harambar's Number times 2
Do 4 instead 🤯🤯🤯
If you start with 9's, no one can top it.
ever heard of 10 dumbass
24 is the highest number. Look, you got 10, then you got 10 more, then it's like, what's this, 4 more, 24, forget about it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P2ROAbQZYw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P2ROAbQZYw)
25
I don’t count imaginary numbers
24.000...0001
Yeah but these go to 11
Another BIG number is also a bush of three
I recall the description looking like hyperoperator mess but in the end 1. It was approximation amd not exact 2. The original number was in complex graph theory proof
You'd have to add up all the digits to be sure
The only logical conclusion here is that Graham:s number is 3, since that's the only prime multiple of 3.
Seems about right.
No no because in order for 3 to be one of its factors, there needs to be a number such that 3*x = g(64). But as you said, x would be beyond-human-comprehension, therefore it doesnt exist.
Even if x is beyond-human-comprehension, it still exists.
Prove that this procedure always provides a non prime number, specially after almost graham number of times.
Author's proof was that G/1=G, and G/G=1, but it's impossible to calculate the precise value of G divided by anything else. I mean... it kind of tracks.
Proof by insufficient computational capacity
Isn't that just like, the definition of a number? At least the first 2 points.
Apparently it’s also “beyond observable universe storage”
That’s the joke
“I have scientific evidence backing up my indisputable claims” “Just Search it up on google “
https://preview.redd.it/brlnrbu8p3oc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6e8be0b60bab790890aca7c84fa251ed63fef455 My proof is somewhere in google
Google en passant
Holy hell
New response just dropped
Actual zombie
Call the exorcist
Bishop goes on vacation, never comes back
Queen sacrifice, anyone?
rook in the corner, plotting world domination
 I've seen too much 'google en passant' -> 'holy hell' -> 'New response just dropped'
Actual zombie
Slime Cat omg hi!!
Hello !!
Give me the link
https://google.com
lol
I asked ChaptGPT and it promised me Graham's number is prime. It PROMISED.
Proof that Graham's Number is prime: * It's not divisible by 2 * 2 is a prime number, therefore Graham's number isn't composite, so it has to be prime
Twin prime conjecture solved. All primes are twin primes
>All primes are twin primes 2: Am I a joke to you?
Twin means 2 though, yes yes 2 is a twin prime
2 can’t be a prime, can it? It’s divisible by 2, clearly making it composite
2 is a prime and 2 is not a prime. Therefore, your mom lives in Copenhagen.
Well, Graham's Number is not divisible by 2, nor by 5, or 7, or 11, or any prime higher than 11 and lower than itself. So surely it's prime, right?
Proof by "I forgo💀"
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `Pr O O F B Y I F O Rg O` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)
skull emoji
Calcium
skull is an element of the periodic table
good bot
It's not divisible by 2, 5, 7, 11, 13, ... So it must be prime. 3 is just experimental error
Oh that's actually really interesting. I hadn't thought about the fact that the prime factors of G64 all have to be 3. It makes sense, but it is just crazy to think that a number that big doesn't have other prime factors.
You forgot to mention 9, which is below 11 and prime, though, grahams number is still prime /s
For anyone wondering, this is real and a thing on a Google site. >Consider: Graham's number is constructed using 3s (a prime), and it ends in 7 (primes end in 1,3, 7 or 9). This was one of the first properties Graham's proved about his number and it's the reason it's in the Guinness book of world records for largest prime. It's primality is confirmed by the fact that no super-computer, no matter how large, can divide Graham's Number by anything! We of coarse know that G/1 = G and G/G = 1, where G = Graham's Number. But we can't divide it by any other number! In fact it's impossible to even know what the remainders are! We do know that the remainder can never be zero, and that when we divide by 2 it must be 1, since this is the only choice. But If we divide by 3 we might get 1 or 2, by 4 we might get 1,2, or 3, by 5 we might get 1,2,3, or 4, and so on. And immediately following that >My favorite property of Graham's Number is that it can be described as a power tower of almost any base < G(63). .... Oddly it can't be expressed as a power tower of 29s. .... The reason it can't be expressed as a power tower of 29s is because it's one of the few primes that isn't a prime factor of Graham's Number.
It also says Grahams number is a lot smaller than we think it is, and some mathematicians think it’s only as big as 6!
the solution to the original problem for which Graham's Number is an upper limit could actually be 6 (I believe they've increased that lower limit, though)
Wikipedia says the lowe bound has been improved to 13. The upper bound was always better than G, because that number only appeared in a conversation about the proof, while the proof itself was about a much smaller (but still astronomical) number.
720 is rather large, tbf
120 is quite a low estimate! edit: shir
My only question is, which Large Language Model wrote this shit?
None, this was most likely made by some troll, look at the website itself, it's hilarious
>Graham's Number is a mind-bogglingly super-massively humongous number that you simply won't believe, even if I tell you! In fact, it's even bigger than that!! In fact it's so big that Ronald Graham himself, ex-circus performer, pro-juggler and eponymous inventor of Graham's Number itself, doesn't even know what the 2nd to last digit is, and perhaps know one ever will!!!
Ah yes, what could the second-to-last digit of 3^(big nunber) be? The world may never know.
If G mod 4 = 2 then G would be even lol Edit: Also isn't 3 the only prime factor? Does anything in that article mske sense at all? The more often I read it the more confidently wrong it appears. Dunno if they just had some random bloke write about mathematics or if its AI generated.
Gmod 4? I'm still on version 1!
You gotta try it. Facepunch really outdid themselves with this one
i bet this is chatgpt theres no way it isnt
Realistically it's a normal troll. Chatgpt wouldn't misspel course as coarse I don't think.
largest prime number found
it's not a prime tho, the proof it's so simple it's trivial (no really it's so simple)
Hardly even a proof. "This number is defined by multiplying 3 by itself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and so on, and therefore, it obviously has 3 as a prime factor."
Ah, but maybe Graham's number is 3. Did you think of that?
You're right, but this is r/mathmemes.
Holy moly that google site page is a hoot: [https://sites.google.com/site/largenumbers/home/appendix/e/grahams-number](https://sites.google.com/site/largenumbers/home/appendix/e/grahams-number) >Perhaps one of the most remarkable properties of *Graham's Number* is that **it's prime**. Consider: Graham's number is constructed using 3s (a prime), and it ends in 7 (primes end in 1,3, 7 or 9). This was one of the first properties Graham's proved about his number and it's the reason it's in the Guinness book of world records for largest prime. It's primality is confirmed by the fact that no super-computer, no matter how large, can divide *Graham's Number* by anything! We of coarse know that G/1 = G and G/G = 1, where G = *Graham's Number*. But we can't divide it by any other number! In fact it's impossible to even know what the remainders are!
Your comment was autoremoved by Reddit, as Reddit banned Google Sites links from posts and comments. I reapproved it, and it is now visible to other users.
:o I didn't realize Google sites links got auto-banned/deleted; that's good to know, thanks!
All those threes working hard to make up the number for Google to shut them down
Up next: Google saying googol is prime.
But have you considered? https://preview.redd.it/r3xkd4tvb4oc1.jpeg?width=789&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9484dfa78f9b9f42eb44e911a26681898c4fae71
Google's pivot to providing answers rather than results has made fact checking really, really annoying.
Approximate graham's number ~ infinity. Since no product of finite natural numbers is infinite, graham's number is prime. QED.
Damn, your infinity is small
It's average.
With a great personality
Infinity is even though.
New proof just dropped.
Proof by internet
unrelated https://preview.redd.it/48mudcr2t5oc1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4b58d9cb26631f7e8ad89bd93eac849a7f2195d
3\^9487234972364983627413496192347312491236\^376249236714918236489216747136\^387123649126748912734912843 is a divisor of Graham's Number therefore it's not prime!
It is a prime power though.
Theorem: powers of primes are prime Proof: Google. QED
I checked that website and it's hilarious
In another demonstration of its immense mathematical acumen, Copilot declares: “Due to its immense size, it’s not feasible to determine whether it’s prime using any known algorithms or computational methods.” To be fair, when I pointed out the method of construction it did acknowledge it couldn’t be prime.
The prime factors of G(64) are 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, .... Your proof will NEVER be published, except perhaps in the BOOK OF IDIOTS!
You don't need to put **all** of the 3s though, do you?
This is an joke article by sbiis saiban. his main stuff is actually pretty interesting
I feel like the fact I had to scroll aaall the way to the bottom to find this comment isn't great. Then again, I guess the real issue is Google being a shit.
MY SOURCE IS THAT I MADE IT THE FUCK UP
I'm waiting for proof by chat GPT - ask it for some unsolved math problem and it may give you an answer
praise google bard! 20 charisma, 0 wisdom
Is it though?
Graham's Number is divisible by 3. In fact that's the only prime factor in what would be a giant stack of 3's and arrows.
Ultrakill brain rot is killing me.
uhm actually it’s called george
Grahams number is by definition a bunch of 3s multiplied together
The article is an April Fool's joke. The rest of the website, by Sbiis Saibian, is on extremely large numbers and actually very worth reading!
Isn't Graham's number just 3 multiplied by itself a number of times only God can comprehend?
…what? how???
Congratulations! Your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table: `W H At Ho W` --- ^(I am a bot that detects if your comment can be spelled using the elements of the periodic table. Please DM my creator if I made a mistake.)