3↑↑↑3= ? but with 10 instead of 3 ( approximation, order of magnitude )

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












3↑↑↑3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow ↑ notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10



3↑↑↑3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.



I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....



Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3↑↑↑3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3↑↑↑↑3



Thanks



!↑↑↑↑!
:)







share|cite|improve this question






















  • So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
    – Jazzachi
    Dec 21 '17 at 3:55










  • This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
    – Ross Millikan
    Dec 21 '17 at 4:19











  • Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
    – Simply Beautiful Art
    Aug 12 at 3:13














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












3↑↑↑3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow ↑ notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10



3↑↑↑3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.



I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....



Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3↑↑↑3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3↑↑↑↑3



Thanks



!↑↑↑↑!
:)







share|cite|improve this question






















  • So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
    – Jazzachi
    Dec 21 '17 at 3:55










  • This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
    – Ross Millikan
    Dec 21 '17 at 4:19











  • Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
    – Simply Beautiful Art
    Aug 12 at 3:13












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











3↑↑↑3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow ↑ notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10



3↑↑↑3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.



I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....



Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3↑↑↑3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3↑↑↑↑3



Thanks



!↑↑↑↑!
:)







share|cite|improve this question














3↑↑↑3= (or near) in power tower of 10 or in ( Knuth ) arrow ↑ notation of 10 to get a sense of it's order of magnitude; I grasp numbers more easily with 10



3↑↑↑3 being the first really huge number in the awesome crescendo of Graham's number, I suspect that it is still within the grasp of imagination, but it would help to get it in terms of 10 instead of 3.



I can't find it on the web, I am pretty sure I'm not the only one to wonder about this....



Please note that I am really talking about the small (?!) 3↑↑↑3 (Sun Tower), not G1=3↑↑↑↑3



Thanks



!↑↑↑↑!
:)









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 12 at 3:15









Simply Beautiful Art

49.4k572172




49.4k572172










asked Dec 21 '17 at 3:33









Norwin Munster

1




1











  • So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
    – Jazzachi
    Dec 21 '17 at 3:55










  • This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
    – Ross Millikan
    Dec 21 '17 at 4:19











  • Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
    – Simply Beautiful Art
    Aug 12 at 3:13
















  • So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
    – Jazzachi
    Dec 21 '17 at 3:55










  • This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
    – Ross Millikan
    Dec 21 '17 at 4:19











  • Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
    – Simply Beautiful Art
    Aug 12 at 3:13















So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
– Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55




So as I understand it, you want the value of $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ expressed in scientific notation?
– Jazzachi
Dec 21 '17 at 3:55












This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
– Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19





This answer might give you some idea. Basically you can't write $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ as $10^text something$. In theory you can, but that something is unimaginably large. It take many applications of the logarithm to make the number comprehensible. You might enjoy the May, 1982 column of Metamagical Themas by Douglas Hofstadter which you can download here
– Ross Millikan
Dec 21 '17 at 4:19













Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
– Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13




Sidenote: the first step to Graham's number is $3uparrowuparrowuparrowuparrow3$, which is much larger.
– Simply Beautiful Art
Aug 12 at 3:13










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
$3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?



    Now, we have



    beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign



    One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,




    $$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$




    where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.



    The base case:



    $$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$



    The inductive case:



    beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign



    as claimed.




    If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:



    $$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$






    share|cite|improve this answer




















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );








       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2575271%2f3%25e2%2586%2591%25e2%2586%2591%25e2%2586%25913-but-with-10-instead-of-3-approximation-order-of-magnitude%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      0
      down vote













      For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
      $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
        $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.






        share|cite|improve this answer






















          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
          $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          For large power towers, what matters for the size is the number of layers, not the numbers inside it. Yes, if you make one of the numbers enormous you can overcome this, but for reasonable sized numbers it doesn't matter which one you pick.
          $3uparrow uparrow uparrow 3$ is a tower $3^27=7625597484987$ layers high. This is about $7.6 cdot 10^12$ layers high, which is how I would write it in terms of $10$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 21 '17 at 5:01









          Ross Millikan

          277k21187352




          277k21187352




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?



              Now, we have



              beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign



              One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,




              $$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$




              where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.



              The base case:



              $$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$



              The inductive case:



              beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign



              as claimed.




              If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:



              $$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?



                Now, we have



                beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign



                One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,




                $$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$




                where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.



                The base case:



                $$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$



                The inductive case:



                beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign



                as claimed.




                If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:



                $$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?



                  Now, we have



                  beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign



                  One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,




                  $$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$




                  where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.



                  The base case:



                  $$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$



                  The inductive case:



                  beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign



                  as claimed.




                  If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:



                  $$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  For starters, I would suggest reading Pentation Notation - How does it work?



                  Now, we have



                  beginalign3uparrowuparrowuparrow3&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrowuparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3uparrow3uparrow3\&=3uparrowuparrow3^3^3\&=3uparrowuparrow7625597484987endalign



                  One may note that $10^n/1010le3^n<10^n$ for $n>2$, hence,




                  $$10uparrow7625597484986uparrow<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<10uparrowuparrow7625597484987$$




                  where the upper bound is trivial and the lower bound may be observed inductively by proving $(10uparrowuparrow n)10<3uparrowuparrow(n+1)$ for $n>1$.



                  The base case:



                  $$(10uparrowuparrow2)10=10^11<7625597484987=3^3^3=3uparrowuparrow3$$



                  The inductive case:



                  beginalign(10uparrowuparrow(n+1))10&=(10uparrow(10uparrowuparrow n))10\&<(10uparrow((3uparrowuparrow(n+1))/10))10\&<3uparrow(3uparrowuparrow(n+1))\&=3uparrowuparrow(n+2)endalign



                  as claimed.




                  If this is easier to read, the end result is essentially:



                  $$underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484986<3uparrowuparrowuparrow3<underbrace10^10^10^ldots_7625597484987$$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 12 at 3:56









                  Simply Beautiful Art

                  49.4k572172




                  49.4k572172






















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2575271%2f3%25e2%2586%2591%25e2%2586%2591%25e2%2586%25913-but-with-10-instead-of-3-approximation-order-of-magnitude%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                      Carbon dioxide

                      Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?