Graham's Number - Definition

Definition

Using Knuth's up-arrow notation, Graham's number G (as defined in Gardner's Scientific American article) is

\left. \begin{matrix} G &=&3\underbrace{\uparrow \uparrow \cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots \uparrow}3 \\ & &3\underbrace{\uparrow \uparrow \cdots\cdots\cdots\cdots \uparrow}3 \\ & &\underbrace{\qquad\;\; \vdots \qquad\;\;} \\ & &3\underbrace{\uparrow \uparrow \cdots\cdot\cdot \uparrow}3 \\ & &3\uparrow \uparrow \uparrow \uparrow3 \end{matrix} \right \} \text{64 layers}

where the number of arrows in each layer, starting at the top layer, is specified by the value of the next layer below it; that is,

and where a superscript on an up-arrow indicates how many arrows are there. In other words, G is calculated in 64 steps: the first step is to calculate g1 with four up-arrows between 3s; the second step is to calculate g2 with g1 up-arrows between 3s; the third step is to calculate g3 with g2 up-arrows between 3s; and so on, until finally calculating G = g64 with g63 up-arrows between 3s.

Equivalently,

and the superscript on f indicates an iteration of the function, e.g., f 4(n) = f(f(f(f(n)))). Expressed in terms of the family of hyperoperations, the function f is the particular sequence, which is a version of the rapidly growing Ackermann function A(n,n). (In fact, for all n.) The function f can also be expressed in Conway chained arrow notation as, and this notation also provides the following bounds on G:

Read more about this topic:  Graham's Number

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    “It’s a rare parent who can see his or her child clearly and objectively. At a school board meeting I attended . . . the only definition of a gifted child on which everyone in the audience could agree was “mine.””
    —Jane Adams (20th century)

    “The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
    —William James (1842–1910)

    “Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
    —Walter Pater (1839–1894)