Gird your loins. We're going in deep.

Mar 28, 2016 5:35 PM

TheSpaismunky

Views

35420

Likes

1621

Dislikes

50

So I saw this image and it reminded me of something i had learned a while ago. I want to share that thing.

This image shows the fact that we can display objects with a higher dimension the the surface we are displaying it on by taking the objects lower dimensional counterpart, translating it, and connecting the vertices

So what do cubes and vertices have to do with it?

First I need to BRIEFLY explain Ramsey Theory. One of the questions posed by this theory is "How big must the original structure be in order to ensure that at least one of the pieces has a given interesting property?" So the 'original structure' for us will be hypercubes (higher dimensional cubes) with colored lines connecting the vertices. the colors in this case will be red or blue

So what's the interesting thing we want to happen?

I think the above picture will explain it better than I can in words. Basically what we want is a flat plane (2D) of lines connecting vertices that all have the same color. Please do not mind my shitty Paint skillz... because there will be more

How do we make the interesting thing happen?

This is the first part of Ramsey Theory that i'll discuss more in depth. It states "How big must the original structure be..." or in Layman's terms: how can we force it happen. For this problem its fairly simple. Make a hyper cube in the Nth dimension. "What dimension exactly though?" I hear you asking. Don't worry, we'll get there

Enter Ron Graham

This dude came up with the upper limit to that question. Keep in mind UPPER limit, the actual answer is either equal to or lower than this but that configuration of colored lines and vertices has to happen at that number of dimensions. "What number of dimensions is that?" I hear you ask, well keep reading.

Yeah that's gonna be a bit difficult...

I'll show you instead of telling you. Lets make sure you have the basics before we get crazy though.

you can combine multiple additions into multiplication:

3+3+3+3+3+3+3 = 3*7

you can combine multiple multiplications into exponents:

3*3*3*3*3*3*3 = 3^7

good. lets go

Let learn new math!

This is Knuth's up arrow notation. It compresses exponents into a 'simpler' form.

Lets apply this to the number three (3)

we'll need this to get to the big number. It's literally a bunch of threes.

This is gonna look like child's play one were through here.

Yeah, were learning a different notation to write these things down (even though we can only really write down one simply).

(To all the haters: I will keep using paint. I like it.

Getting bigger (hur hur hur its an innuendo)

By the way, we ain't even scratched the surface yet.

This is three arrows, god help us all...

three arrows is a compressed operation of two arrows. It's 'A' double arrow 'A' a 'B' number of times

I think you get the picture now

this is a REALLY big number. for perspective, 3 up arrow 4 is a 3.6 trillion DIGIT number and 3 up arrow 5 is 3^(that 3.6 trillion digit number) and DWARFS googolplex.

So now we get too big for the universe we live in.

if we were to write out the entire stack in 2cm font it would stretch 150 million KILOMETERS. That's right. TO THE SUN.

So now four arrows... Why...

We'll call this number G1.

By the way we ain't even fucking CLOSE to Grahams number. We need to go deeper.

BUCKLE UP BUCKAROO CUZ WE AIN"T EVEN CLOSE TO DONE!!!

so let's say G2 is 3(G1 amount of up arrows)3 now what do you suppose G3 is?

That's right 3(G2 amount of up arrows)3

Now how many times do you suppose we repeat this process? Five? Six? Seven?

Oh, honey...

We repeat that process 64 times.

SIXTY. FUCKING. FOUR

That's Graham's Number.

Ron Graham's proof also contained a lower limit to the dimensions the cube can exist in to force that certain outcome.

It's fucking six. Or is Ron himself's words "A small gap in our knowledge"

Mo' Fuggin cat tax

Thanks for reading. Hope your head stops hurting soon.

sauses:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTeJ64KD5cg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HX8bihEe3nA

i am confus

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"Between 6 and Graham's number" is my favourite numerical response

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I hope this doesn't sound insanely stupid. But where is 4D or 5D anything?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

tldr; Graham's Number is Sixty Fucking Four.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Conclusion: 6-dimensional beings would be very, very, very intelligent

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is rather poorly explained. You started with lines between vertices in higher dimensions and then ended with how Graham's number. -1

10 years ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 2

I still think the best way to describe another dimension is the pool table analogy.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

4D? 5D? What is this nonsense

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

As far as math is concerned you can have as many dimensions as you want, remember math isn't limited to describing the physical world.

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Is 6 just the number of vertices or am I missing something?

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is how you hypercube

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

My uncle has spent part of his time dealing with Ramsey theory, it's pretty damn awesome.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

ah yes g64, the equivalent of "1 inch" compared to the entire universe.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

As soon as I saw the 5d cube I was going to comment about graham's number

10 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

And here I was thinking ramsay theory was how many cuts you can make before biting into a sausage...

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

4 dimensional julia set fractal anyone? v

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Even though I didn't understand shit, but that's the content I wish appeared more on imgur. Please, do some more of these.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

This is the shit Imgur was originally for before all these fucking shitposts like rhm saturated front page. Awesome!

10 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

I really question the value of a number so large that, if each digit was written in a Planck Volume of Space, the observable (1/2)

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

universe would fail to contain the number. Also, the work went unpublished before someone wrote a Scientific American article on it (2/2)

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Pretty sure the "good" box was the "bad" box

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My number is called Steve's number and I do that thing to the threes and up arrows too but I do it 65 times.

10 years ago | Likes 33 Dislikes 1

My number, Stephen's number is the threes up arrow thingy 66 times.

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

My number, Polly's number, is threes up arrow 69 times.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Let's not be L7

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Well we can pretend we're dead.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTeJ64KD5cg&list=PLt5AfwLFPxWKZEG7KVg6HfdN2uWFLIB5q&index=3

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

woops. i'll put this as a source in the description.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Didn't understand shit, but +1 for the hard work on the post

10 years ago | Likes 26 Dislikes 0

essentially the number is so big, you need exponents for exponents several times just to be able to represent it realistically. 1/2

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

IE 2 squared X times, all that squared X times, and so on and so on, because the 2nd smallest it can be shown is 64 equations long. 2/2

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

(1) The thing is, there is ONLY our known dimension of space and time. One could say it is 3D with time as the 4th dimension, but there is

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

(2) nothing else than that in reality. We use numbers to describe dimensions because we can abstract problems down to 1 or 2 dimensions, and

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

(5) another type than the others. If there are more, it is possible that their dimensional value is constant and therefore not detectable.

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

(4) form theories and calculations into reality. Also it is hard to imagine more dimensions... but see, time is one of them, and it has

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

(3) based on those abstractions we can easily differ between the number of dimensions involved. It's rather an imaginary concept, so we can

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

I wan to upvote for math but this is so poorly explained

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

What do you think I could improve on next time? I'm doing another post for Loaders number and want to do better.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I will PM you my response is probably going to be too long.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Now explain Loader's number.

10 years ago | Likes 48 Dislikes 1

Loader's number expresses the number of VJs that will be remembered by the public after 1995, doesn't it?

10 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Hah! Loder

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

hahahahahahahhahahahahaha no. (maybe though)

10 years ago | Likes 56 Dislikes 0

Is it the length of time you'll spend looking at video game loading screens in your lifetime?

10 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I don't know what that is, but I like the way you explained this. Please, do it.

10 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Alright then. If it's wanted, I'll do it.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I have no idea what I'm looking at, but it looks smart

10 years ago | Likes 158 Dislikes 1

The big yellow one is the sun!

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

When it was described (late 1970s) it was the largest (finite) number a mathematician seriously used. It's so big, it's hard to write.

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Worry not, the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell

10 years ago | Likes 54 Dislikes 1

So is a big black man

10 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

I believe he's the power bottom of the cell...

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

At least it can be explained in almost layman's terms, there are numbers like Chaitin's constant, where yeah that isn't happening.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Challenge fucking accepted.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

My next choice was the Monster group. But if you want to give Chaitin's constant a go first, I can't wait to see it.

10 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I now regret my decision.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Tougher than it seems isn't it?

10 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I have the jist of it now... somewhat. i'm working on my other post, i'll see if I can squeeze it in there.

10 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0