TheSpaismunky
35422
1622
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
onemilliondollars
This is how you hypercube
serpx
4 dimensional julia set fractal anyone?
v
Heath117
This is rather poorly explained. You started with lines between vertices in higher dimensions and then ended with how Graham's number. -1
tomkingkong
Pretty sure the "good" box was the "bad" box
ImgGnuu
And here I was thinking ramsay theory was how many cuts you can make before biting into a sausage...
Spearka
Conclusion: 6-dimensional beings would be very, very, very intelligent
DarthROFLs
Favorited for my inner braniac, when he's awake again.
Edringtron
I hope this doesn't sound insanely stupid. But where is 4D or 5D anything?
HalfJudPrince
Is 6 just the number of vertices or am I missing something?
Flapjackal
i am confus
trueab1
Even though I didn't understand shit, but that's the content I wish appeared more on imgur. Please, do some more of these.
streak1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTeJ64KD5cg&list=PLt5AfwLFPxWKZEG7KVg6HfdN2uWFLIB5q&index=3
TheSpaismunky
woops. i'll put this as a source in the description.
Thewhitestofprodigies
4D? 5D? What is this nonsense
whyteraven74
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.
etazero
ah yes g64, the equivalent of "1 inch" compared to the entire universe.
ScientistFromSouth
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)
ScientistFromSouth
universe would fail to contain the number. Also, the work went unpublished before someone wrote a Scientific American article on it (2/2)
MPSFroggy
This was interesting. Granted, it left me with nothing but questions. But thought provoking nonetheless.
TheSpaismunky
What question do you have? I'll try to answer them either in the comments or another post if necessary.
MPSFroggy
I did my research and found what was confusing me.. Now I understand it all.. pff easy
whatthefuckalltheusernamesaretaken
This is the shit Imgur was originally for before all these fucking shitposts like rhm saturated front page. Awesome!
Jackofslayers
I wan to upvote for math but this is so poorly explained
TheSpaismunky
What do you think I could improve on next time? I'm doing another post for Loaders number and want to do better.
Jackofslayers
I will PM you my response is probably going to be too long.
Galebrithien
"Between 6 and Graham's number" is my favourite numerical response
whyteraven74
My uncle has spent part of his time dealing with Ramsey theory, it's pretty damn awesome.
AlmostAandOx3
As soon as I saw the 5d cube I was going to comment about graham's number
ImguriansFillMySaltReservoir
tldr; Graham's Number is Sixty Fucking Four.
PanTroglo
Let's not be L7
whyteraven74
Well we can pretend we're dead.
clayrev
I still think the best way to describe another dimension is the pool table analogy.
funkjacket
so, a cube has six faces, therefore you need 6 dimensions minimum to demonstrate an n-dimensional hypercube. Why is your mind so blown?
PurestEvil
(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
PurestEvil
(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
PurestEvil
(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
PurestEvil
(3) based on those abstractions we can easily differ between the number of dimensions involved. It's rather an imaginary concept, so we can
PurestEvil
(5) another type than the others. If there are more, it is possible that their dimensional value is constant and therefore not detectable.
LordOfPudim
Didn't understand shit, but +1 for the hard work on the post
minipancho94
essentially the number is so big, you need exponents for exponents several times just to be able to represent it realistically. 1/2
minipancho94
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
eyeofthepanda
Now explain Loader's number.
CatSnakePlissken
Loader's number expresses the number of VJs that will be remembered by the public after 1995, doesn't it?
PanTroglo
Hah! Loder
TheSpaismunky
hahahahahahahhahahahahaha no. (maybe though)
Amythyst
Is it the length of time you'll spend looking at video game loading screens in your lifetime?
ReptilianPokemaster
I don't know what that is, but I like the way you explained this. Please, do it.
TheSpaismunky
Alright then. If it's wanted, I'll do it.
NateOfAmericans
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.
ToxicPineapple
My number, Stephen's number is the threes up arrow thingy 66 times.
Xevvie
My number, Polly's number, is threes up arrow 69 times.
FunctionalSanePerson
I have no idea what I'm looking at, but it looks smart
Perfzilla
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.
blugthorp
The big yellow one is the sun!
whyteraven74
At least it can be explained in almost layman's terms, there are numbers like Chaitin's constant, where yeah that isn't happening.
TheSpaismunky
Challenge fucking accepted.
whyteraven74
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.
TheSpaismunky
I now regret my decision.
whyteraven74
Tougher than it seems isn't it?
TheSpaismunky
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.
TheLegendarySuperStrayan
Worry not, the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell
Ketheres
So is a big black man
whyteraven74
I believe he's the power bottom of the cell...