factsmate.

How big is Graham's number? Too big for the universe

100 sec read
How big is Graham's number? Too big for the universe

Graham's number is an exact whole number ending in 7, yet the universe lacks room for its digits. Here is how big it really is.

Verified · Plus Magazine (University of Cambridge)

Graham’s number is a finite whole number so large that the observable universe does not contain enough matter to write out its digits, yet mathematicians know it is divisible by 3 and that its last ten digits are 2464195387.

How big is Graham’s number?

Too big for any physical description, so it is built with Knuth’s up-arrow notation, in which each extra arrow repeats the operation before it. 3↑3 is 3 × 3 × 3 = 27. 3↑↑3 is 3↑3↑3, or 3 to the power 27, which is 7,625,597,484,987. 3↑↑↑3 is a tower of powers of 3 that is 7.6 trillion levels high. Then g1 = 3↑↑↑↑3, four arrows, already far beyond anything physical. g2 uses g1 arrows; each step uses the previous number as its arrow count, and g64 is Graham’s number.

That makes it possible to define the number exactly even though it can never be written in full, and any fixed number of its final digits can be computed with modular arithmetic: Graham’s number ends in 7.

Where does Graham’s number come from?

From Ramsey theory. Ronald Graham and Bruce Rothschild asked, in 1971, how many dimensions a cube needs before every two-colouring of the lines joining its corners must contain four corners lying in one plane, all joined in a single colour. A common misconception is that g64 is the bound in their paper. The paper’s bound was a different, smaller number; the g64 version is a slightly larger, easier-to-define number that Graham explained to Martin Gardner, whose Scientific American column made it famous in 1977.

It is also no longer the best answer to its own problem. In 2013 Mikhail Lavrov, Mitchell Lee and John Mackey proved the true answer is below 2↑↑↑6, which is tiny next to even g1. From below, the bound has climbed from 6 in 1971 to 11 in 2003 and 13 in 2008. The true answer lies somewhere between 13 and that new ceiling, and nobody yet knows where.

…5387
its last digits
64
layers to build it
≥13
the true answer

Sources & references

5 references

Well-established. Corroborated by 4 independent sources.

1 Plus Magazine (University of Cambridge) University outreach The number that has come to be known as Graham's number (not the exact number that appeared in his initial paper, it is a slightly larger and slightly easier to define number that he explained to Martin Gardner shortly afterwards) is defined by using this up-arrow notation, in a cumulative process that creates power towers of threes that quickly spiral beyond any magnitudes we can imagine. plus.maths.org ↗
2 Wolfram MathWorld mathematics encyclopedia … any fixed number of its final digits can be computed using modular arithmetic. In particular, its final ten decimal digits are 2464195387 (OEIS A165736). mathworld.wolfram.com ↗
3 arXiv Peer-reviewed paper The bound was later improved to 11 <= N^* <= N. In this article, it is improved to 13 <= N^* <= N. arxiv.org ↗
4 arXiv Peer-reviewed paper They give an explicit upper bound: F(F(F(F(F(F(F(12))))))), where F(m) = 2^^(m)^^3, an extremely fast-growing function. By reducing the problem to a variant of the Hales-Jewett problem, we find an upper bound which is between F(4) and F(5). arxiv.org ↗
5 OEIS Foundation (On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences) mathematical database Of course leading zeros are omitted. a(3) gives the last 10 digits of Graham's number. oeis.org ↗
✓ Last reviewed

More like this