Hey we love you America Numberphile and I want to say the UK is in my thoughts as you deal with the loss of the 3 aid workers accidently hit. Love you guys
Factorials only have roughly the same strength as exponentials. So a power tower (with some factorials thrown in) of factorial height is only about a triple up arrow in strength. I’d image G1 is bigger than Tony’s leviathan number.
John Rickert was once a professor of mine! He is such a sharp guy and a wonderful teacher. I remember that he held his students to a high standard, and his enthusiasm for math was very infectious to me.
Since Tony mentioned the Stirling approximation, this video ought to give an inspiration for another series of videos: interesting approximations in the world of mathematics. I know some approximations were covered in previous numberphile videos, but why not make a series out of them? Brady please do your magic!
I miss BibleDex. I get that I'm probably the only one, but it's great to see Bible scholars interviewed without the kind of hype that other places give.
Interesting to see Dr. Rickert in this video. I studied under him, very briefly - never took a full class, but he went over answers to a Putnam competition and I watched him do math way over my head for about an hour.
Since it appears in the last 3000 digits, and they don't know if it's the smallest. I'm guessing that they discovered it by only keeping the last ~3000 digits for each multiplication of 2, and they just kept going until the goliath sequence appeared? So it's proof of a goliath number, but they only checked the last ~3000 digits of each value of 2^n. Probably used a higher digit count than 3000 to check, but it illustrates my point.
You can't check that many powers. That exponent is big, as in "bigger than the number of particles in the universe" big. There's no way to check them one by one - there has to be some way to generate possible candidates.
It bothers me when people say stuff like that about doppelgangers. Assuming there were infinite universes, there's no reason to assume that you would have all possible configurations of matter. You could simply have an infinite number of universes with a single hydrogen atom, or any other arbitrary configuration.
Might it be worth to use a less shallow focus when brown paper is involved? My impression is that in recent videos there's a lot of focus pull that, to me, is very distracting.
I am kinda missing the point. Those numbers seem to be completely arbitrary (in mathematical sense). To they have any proper mathematical properties or this is just some "funny exercise", you could repeat with other "popular" numbers like 69, 420 or 2137. :v
It's a funny exercise, but also serve as a sandbox for the development of mathematical methods. For example, how do you find a sequence 666 in a power of two? Then you go on trying to break this problem into smaller steps, find shortcuts in calculations, use approximations for lower and upper bounds, and so on. The funny exercise may not have a purpose by itself, but give a well defined problem to work on.
He mentions that in the first video of this trilogy. This is all just for fun. It can be generalized to other sequences of digits, but he doesn't care about any potential future application (or lack thereof).
7:20 Since we're just looking for a comparison, there's a much easier approach that doesn't require Sterling's approximation. By considering the expanded form, one can see (1E666)! is significantly less than (1E666)^(1E666). Then we can take the logarithm: log((1E666)^(1E666)) = 1E666 * log (1E666) = 1E666 * 666, which is clearly less than the other log value, ~1.6E1596 (at 7:02).
It was stated that Graham's Number is larger than the numbers mentioned in this video, but Graham's Number is notated as G64 because it is the sixty-fourth number in the defining sequence. Would there be any apocalyptic significance of the number G666 in that defining sequence? Would there be any apocalyptic significance in using the number 666 rather than three in defining the sequence analogous to the sequence used in defining Graham's Number?
Instead of trying to find 666 instances of 666 consecutively within the fully written out power of 2, I wonder what the smallest power of 2 is where they DONT have to be consecutive.
Hmm, on average a 6660 digit long number should have about 666 6s. Then you are close to 2^22k. You could make a better estimate about how much sooner it could occur since there are lots of lower powers that could by accident have an overrepresentation of 2s. But I bet that it isn't far off the 22k-th power of two. A computer can do that brute force for you...
@@pacman52280 Ah, but then you can surely extrapolated my estimate to this problem too? I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader that that occurs around 2^2M. 😉 Takes a bit more effort for a computer to do, but still possible...
Don't be sorry, it's the 3*10⁹$ you just gave them and the NATO arms stockpiles in the region that allowed it to happen. Biden could stop making angry remarks tomorrow if he only started heading back the military support
When people talk about the inevitability of duplicates in a sufficiently large universe (or similarly, the idea that every possible digit sequence might appear in pi), I'm never satisfied with the argument. I understand that a sufficiently large universe will have SOME duplicates... but then the next claim after that is that EVERYTHING has a duplicate. What's the missing step? I remain unconvinced. What's the problem here? Is it that there IS a rigorous proof but it's too hard to explain in informal ways so nobody's managed to communicate it yet?
It’s a statistical argument. Think of rolling five dice. There’s only a finite number of possible outcomes, right? Well if you roll the dice enough times, you would expect to get every possible combination eventually. And if you kept rolling, everything would be a repeat of something that came before since every combination has already shown up. If you just keep rolling over and over again, it would be weird if certain combinations repeated but others magically never showed up again. In the case of five dice, there aren’t that many combinations, so it wouldn’t really take that long in the grand scheme of things to start seeing repeats again. If instead of rolling 5 dice you start talking about ways to arrange atoms in a finite region of space, note that there is still a finite number of possible combinations. If you have a big region of space, there could be a truly vast number of ways to arrange atoms in that space, but it is still finite. So, if you randomly arrange atoms in that space over and over again an even more extremely vast number of times, eventually you will hit every combination. After that point everything will have to be a repeat of something before, and if you run through that cycle multiple times, it would be weird if certain things repeated but others seemed to magically get skipped. That wouldn’t be very random. Granted, the universe itself isn’t completely random. There are big clumps of matter in stars and then vast empty spaces between them. However, there is some randomness in the universe, and that provides a bit of wiggle room in these arguments about duplicates in sufficiently large universes.
@@friiq0 Wow! Many thanks for taking the time to give a detailed answer, I appreciate it. I do understand what you mean. I think that when people talk about this they often forget to stress that it's a statistical argument, entirely predicated on a random process to generate the combinations of stuff. In the case of physics I suppose that's reasonable, although when it comes to things like every finite digit sequence appearing in the decimal expansion of some transcendental number, it gets much tougher because mathematical assertions require rigour.
@@macronencer You’re welcome! I love this kind of stuff. I see what you mean about the mathematical arguments. I think that mathematicians have proved that pi and other transcendental numbers will never settle into any kind of regular pattern. Even though the digits are fixed, that’s why you can think of the digits of pi as “random”. The argument is also different in the case of pi, because the digits go on literally forever. Suppose we consider pi in binary. We expect that pi will eventually write out the entire play Hamlet by Shakespeare at some point. Why are we so sure? Well, suppose that Hamlet never ever shows up in pi even once. That would mean that pi goes on for an actual eternity and somehow magically dodges Hamlet for ever and ever and ever-even though Hamlet is just a finite string of digits like any other. This is why mathematicians are quite confident that pi will eventually contain Hamlet. They are confident there is no special ordered pattern to the digits, and so there is no special Hamlet-avoiding pattern in the digits either. The same argument works for any play, book, poem, etc.
@@friiq0 I know what you mean. Is "confident" the same as "certain", though? We're getting into the gritty areas of metamathematics if we start down that road, perhaps...
@@macronencer I don’t know the math well enough to say that we know for absolute certain. Maybe someone has proved it, but I couldn’t tell you specifically.
Long sequences of repeated digits in a given base are interesting, however you choose to find them can be extended to other bases. Plus, you didn't seem to think about the choice of powers of 2 also being arbitrary.
@@Nebukanezzer You're right, I didn't question the exponent's base being 2 because it was stated in the definition of the number. Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's clearly defined. Also, in the video they mentioned that you could consider other bases for the exponent and do the same thing. On the other hand, the "in base 10" part was never explicitly stated and was simply assumed throughout the video; that's the part I have a problem with.
@@JGMeador444The choice of 666 was already arbitrary, and the base 10 came from this. The number and base are just a motivation for the problem, making them funny to work with, but the mathematical tools applied are not limited by them. You could ask "what is the smallest power of 3 where a sequence 3457 (base 8) appears", and the methods would still be the same. But nobody cares about 3457 in base 8, so there would be no fun doing this xD
Nobody is talking about how the symbol for Goliath numbers is the letter G in Tolkien's Cirth alphabet! Mathematicians are getting creative with their symbols :)
Legion's Number should be 666(pentation)666... and I'm not satisfied with the conception of Leviathan numbers at all as defined, simply because of the use of 10 as a base. But I'm with James Grime, and very much anti-decimal, for many of the same reasons.
How many digits does the smallest known Goliath number have in total? Tried to Google it but could not find it, or any other sources on it, for that matter. Any more info?
The word Goliath جالوت appears in the Qur’an in 3 verses Total sum of verse number from the end of the chapter = 111 111 * 6 = 666 and The gematria of these verses = 30522 30522 = 6 * 666th prime (4973) + 666 + 6 + 6 + 6
have you guys ever tried to find the "big"-number that is closest to Grahams Number ? (and i don't mean Grahams Number -1, but some number that has a different way of construction)
The number of Goliath contains 1998 consecutive numbers of 6 just before it we see the digits 4214 What is strange: In the Qur’an: Verse No. 4214, its gematria value = 1998 -------- The word Goliath جالوت appears in the Qur’an in 3 verses Total sum of verse number from the end of the chapter = 111 111 * 6 = 666 and The gematria of these verses = 30522 30522 = 6 * 666th prime (4973) + 666 + 6 + 6 + 6 ------- The last appearance of the word Goliath “جالوت” in the Qur’an was in chapter after 1075 words from end The strange thing is that verse number 1075 in the Qur’an its gematria = 666 ---------
This is just mathematical naval gazing. Imagining very large numbers isn't novel, it's an indication of the decline of academia if this is what passes for PhD material.
All three videos in this little trilogy at bit.ly/ApocalypticTrilogy
tree goliath
Hey we love you America Numberphile and I want to say the UK is in my thoughts as you deal with the loss of the 3 aid workers accidently hit. Love you guys
@@WhataMensch I sat on the joystick by accident. sorry.
Absolutely unbelievable that he didn't mention the leviathan (rounded) would literally be 666E666
The log base 10 of that but point stands.
Tony Padilla's version of a super leviathan number being smaller than Graham's number, and that being smaller than TREE(3), does give one pause.
Factorials only have roughly the same strength as exponentials.
So a power tower (with some factorials thrown in) of factorial height is only about a triple up arrow in strength.
I’d image G1 is bigger than Tony’s leviathan number.
John Rickert was once a professor of mine! He is such a sharp guy and a wonderful teacher. I remember that he held his students to a high standard, and his enthusiasm for math was very infectious to me.
The log_10 of the leviathan number seems suspiciously close to 666*10^666...
Since Tony mentioned the Stirling approximation, this video ought to give an inspiration for another series of videos: interesting approximations in the world of mathematics. I know some approximations were covered in previous numberphile videos, but why not make a series out of them? Brady please do your magic!
I love Tony Padilla and his big numbers. One of my favorite bits of numberphile
5:29 I think for this audience, it's a little "horned" thing.
Mathematicians have officially “gotten ridiculous” (and I for one am all for it)
I miss BibleDex. I get that I'm probably the only one, but it's great to see Bible scholars interviewed without the kind of hype that other places give.
Ivn Panin! Have you heard of him?
@@17.11Acts No. Should I?
9:44 "The horny number" 😂
Interesting to see Dr. Rickert in this video. I studied under him, very briefly - never took a full class, but he went over answers to a Putnam competition and I watched him do math way over my head for about an hour.
Imagine how powerful David's sling would have had to be to defeat Graham
No matter how big N is, if hit with with *0, it falls.
I assume the Legion connection is from the "we are legion" quote from a demon in the bible?
Yes another commenter says it refers to Mark 5:9.
Loved Bibledex years ago!
That was awesome, i love these very huge numbers!
Glad you enjoyed it
Since it appears in the last 3000 digits, and they don't know if it's the smallest. I'm guessing that they discovered it by only keeping the last ~3000 digits for each multiplication of 2, and they just kept going until the goliath sequence appeared? So it's proof of a goliath number, but they only checked the last ~3000 digits of each value of 2^n. Probably used a higher digit count than 3000 to check, but it illustrates my point.
You can't check that many powers. That exponent is big, as in "bigger than the number of particles in the universe" big. There's no way to check them one by one - there has to be some way to generate possible candidates.
this is so silly and goofy, i love it
New numbers dropped 🔥🔥🔥
Imagine if you subtract 1 from the smallest known Goliath number, you get a mersenne prime lol
1:44 have we run so out of symbols that we are using Sindarin letters now?!
I think it's ᚠ (Fehu) from Futhark (Norse runes).
Especially since ᚺ and ᛞ are also Nordic runes.
Cirth does certainly resemble fuþorc.
@@wbfaulk makes sense then.... _sad Gandalf noises_
If it's called a Goliath number, no matter how big it is, you can break it down with the right knowledge
INDETERMINACY OF All-Power Measurement. Correct me if Im wrong 😊
Why aren't there any Behemoth numbers? If you are talking Biblical monsters and mention Leviathan, surely Behemoth should get a mention.
It bothers me when people say stuff like that about doppelgangers. Assuming there were infinite universes, there's no reason to assume that you would have all possible configurations of matter. You could simply have an infinite number of universes with a single hydrogen atom, or any other arbitrary configuration.
I believe I found a mistake: At 7:00, the number
1.6 times 10^1596
is certainly *not* bigger than Googol-plex, which is
10^(10^100).
Yeah that one threw me for loop as well. It's definitely larger than a googol (10^100), but definitely not a googolplex (10^[10^100])
But it's bigger than log gplex, which was the point
@@pauldubois0 Dang you're right. I get it now, thanks!
We need David numbers and slingshot numbers!
Nice.
Might it be worth to use a less shallow focus when brown paper is involved? My impression is that in recent videos there's a lot of focus pull that, to me, is very distracting.
I am kinda missing the point. Those numbers seem to be completely arbitrary (in mathematical sense). To they have any proper mathematical properties or this is just some "funny exercise", you could repeat with other "popular" numbers like 69, 420 or 2137. :v
Exactly what they are, and I don't really care about them
It's a funny exercise, but also serve as a sandbox for the development of mathematical methods. For example, how do you find a sequence 666 in a power of two? Then you go on trying to break this problem into smaller steps, find shortcuts in calculations, use approximations for lower and upper bounds, and so on. The funny exercise may not have a purpose by itself, but give a well defined problem to work on.
He mentions that in the first video of this trilogy. This is all just for fun. It can be generalized to other sequences of digits, but he doesn't care about any potential future application (or lack thereof).
7:20 Since we're just looking for a comparison, there's a much easier approach that doesn't require Sterling's approximation. By considering the expanded form, one can see (1E666)! is significantly less than (1E666)^(1E666). Then we can take the logarithm: log((1E666)^(1E666)) = 1E666 * log (1E666) = 1E666 * 666, which is clearly less than the other log value, ~1.6E1596 (at 7:02).
if your goal is to compare them then yes. But its also off by two magnitudes
Can't believe Jim Sterling was a mathematician before making videos about videogames
His life really is in perpetual decline
Don’t compare a mathematician to that loser
?
You know, the jimquisition guy. He dresses like a clown and "is" pregnant.
Don't know about the video game guy, but the mathematician is Stirling, not Sterling.
We need a Cthulhu number
this is numerphile's TRUE least viewed video. The 301 view video actually has about 15m views. So it is disqualified.
"Devil sized region of space" would be a great album name
Brady's such a watch-dude. Think I saw him with a lovely Sub before, and here he has a moonswatch. 👏
I love this man
I'm glad Numberphile finally covered the horny number... finally putting the "phile" in Numberphile
YOSEMITE SAM: "Great horny numbers!"
I laughed out loud at the definition of a super factorial. That's just ridiculous
The way that phone charger is folded next to the laptop is so uncomfortable
It's nice to know even Tony crashes computers trying to compute numbers. It's not just me! He even crashed his paper...
I'm just fascinated by big numbers. Shame my bank account isn't. 🙃
It was stated that Graham's Number is larger than the numbers mentioned in this video, but Graham's Number is notated as G64 because it is the sixty-fourth number in the defining sequence. Would there be any apocalyptic significance of the number G666 in that defining sequence? Would there be any apocalyptic significance in using the number 666 rather than three in defining the sequence analogous to the sequence used in defining Graham's Number?
5:30 the most wholesome laughter
Very much like the actor who played Wormtail in Harry Potter, or the guy minding the Red Dwarf Back to Reality game
I wonder what this channel is going to do on April 20
Instead of trying to find 666 instances of 666 consecutively within the fully written out power of 2, I wonder what the smallest power of 2 is where they DONT have to be consecutive.
Hmm, on average a 6660 digit long number should have about 666 6s. Then you are close to 2^22k. You could make a better estimate about how much sooner it could occur since there are lots of lower powers that could by accident have an overrepresentation of 2s. But I bet that it isn't far off the 22k-th power of two.
A computer can do that brute force for you...
I checked it. 2^20674 has 666 6s in it. A bit smaller than I expected.
@@landsgevaer, read my comment again. I didn't say 666 6's. I said 666 666's, non-consecutively.
@@pacman52280 Ah, but then you can surely extrapolated my estimate to this problem too? I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader that that occurs around 2^2M. 😉
Takes a bit more effort for a computer to do, but still possible...
When will this video be un-unlisted?
Huge fan of numberphile from America and I want to say I am so sorry for your 3 aid workers. Love from America in your time of grief.
Sorry still had sleep in my eyes from just coming on shift.
Don't be sorry, it's the 3*10⁹$ you just gave them and the NATO arms stockpiles in the region that allowed it to happen.
Biden could stop making angry remarks tomorrow if he only started heading back the military support
@@IDFpartyboi972The angry mob is at your gates, Dr. Frankenstein.
A Goliath of Leviathans is a Golviathan.
When people talk about the inevitability of duplicates in a sufficiently large universe (or similarly, the idea that every possible digit sequence might appear in pi), I'm never satisfied with the argument. I understand that a sufficiently large universe will have SOME duplicates... but then the next claim after that is that EVERYTHING has a duplicate. What's the missing step? I remain unconvinced. What's the problem here? Is it that there IS a rigorous proof but it's too hard to explain in informal ways so nobody's managed to communicate it yet?
It’s a statistical argument. Think of rolling five dice. There’s only a finite number of possible outcomes, right? Well if you roll the dice enough times, you would expect to get every possible combination eventually. And if you kept rolling, everything would be a repeat of something that came before since every combination has already shown up. If you just keep rolling over and over again, it would be weird if certain combinations repeated but others magically never showed up again. In the case of five dice, there aren’t that many combinations, so it wouldn’t really take that long in the grand scheme of things to start seeing repeats again. If instead of rolling 5 dice you start talking about ways to arrange atoms in a finite region of space, note that there is still a finite number of possible combinations. If you have a big region of space, there could be a truly vast number of ways to arrange atoms in that space, but it is still finite. So, if you randomly arrange atoms in that space over and over again an even more extremely vast number of times, eventually you will hit every combination. After that point everything will have to be a repeat of something before, and if you run through that cycle multiple times, it would be weird if certain things repeated but others seemed to magically get skipped. That wouldn’t be very random. Granted, the universe itself isn’t completely random. There are big clumps of matter in stars and then vast empty spaces between them. However, there is some randomness in the universe, and that provides a bit of wiggle room in these arguments about duplicates in sufficiently large universes.
@@friiq0 Wow! Many thanks for taking the time to give a detailed answer, I appreciate it. I do understand what you mean. I think that when people talk about this they often forget to stress that it's a statistical argument, entirely predicated on a random process to generate the combinations of stuff. In the case of physics I suppose that's reasonable, although when it comes to things like every finite digit sequence appearing in the decimal expansion of some transcendental number, it gets much tougher because mathematical assertions require rigour.
@@macronencer You’re welcome! I love this kind of stuff. I see what you mean about the mathematical arguments. I think that mathematicians have proved that pi and other transcendental numbers will never settle into any kind of regular pattern. Even though the digits are fixed, that’s why you can think of the digits of pi as “random”. The argument is also different in the case of pi, because the digits go on literally forever. Suppose we consider pi in binary. We expect that pi will eventually write out the entire play Hamlet by Shakespeare at some point. Why are we so sure? Well, suppose that Hamlet never ever shows up in pi even once. That would mean that pi goes on for an actual eternity and somehow magically dodges Hamlet for ever and ever and ever-even though Hamlet is just a finite string of digits like any other. This is why mathematicians are quite confident that pi will eventually contain Hamlet. They are confident there is no special ordered pattern to the digits, and so there is no special Hamlet-avoiding pattern in the digits either. The same argument works for any play, book, poem, etc.
@@friiq0 I know what you mean. Is "confident" the same as "certain", though? We're getting into the gritty areas of metamathematics if we start down that road, perhaps...
@@macronencer I don’t know the math well enough to say that we know for absolute certain. Maybe someone has proved it, but I couldn’t tell you specifically.
Any resistance PS3 fans here? Remember the Goliaths and the Leviathan? ❤
The crow can only count to 5, so they are happy.
The Goliath numbers symbol looks like a Norse rune
Since the next two also look like Norse runes, I'd expect that was the intention.
I suppose this is all arbitrary, because we are choosing base 10 to do these calculations. Maths is dispassionate towards what base to use.
I had that thought through the video as well, and I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned.
Long sequences of repeated digits in a given base are interesting, however you choose to find them can be extended to other bases.
Plus, you didn't seem to think about the choice of powers of 2 also being arbitrary.
@@Nebukanezzer You're right, I didn't question the exponent's base being 2 because it was stated in the definition of the number. Yes, it's arbitrary, but it's clearly defined. Also, in the video they mentioned that you could consider other bases for the exponent and do the same thing.
On the other hand, the "in base 10" part was never explicitly stated and was simply assumed throughout the video; that's the part I have a problem with.
@@JGMeador444The choice of 666 was already arbitrary, and the base 10 came from this. The number and base are just a motivation for the problem, making them funny to work with, but the mathematical tools applied are not limited by them.
You could ask "what is the smallest power of 3 where a sequence 3457 (base 8) appears", and the methods would still be the same. But nobody cares about 3457 in base 8, so there would be no fun doing this xD
For the purposes of definition, would 6666 be 1 or 2 666's?
David will find the smallest Goliath number
Nobody is talking about how the symbol for Goliath numbers is the letter G in Tolkien's Cirth alphabet! Mathematicians are getting creative with their symbols :)
Find someone who likes you as much as Tony likes large numbers.
> trilogy
> 4 videos
lol
I recognize that symbol for Goliath numbers- it's Gandalf's signature from Lord Of the Rings!
It's the letter G in the Cirth alphabet. Mathematicians be getting bored :)
"My name is legion" appears somewhere in the bible. (Lucifer is speaking, or one of his minions, as I recall.)
Legion's Number should be 666(pentation)666... and I'm not satisfied with the conception of Leviathan numbers at all as defined, simply because of the use of 10 as a base. But I'm with James Grime, and very much anti-decimal, for many of the same reasons.
How many digits does the smallest known Goliath number have in total? Tried to Google it but could not find it, or any other sources on it, for that matter. Any more info?
These big numbers make me realize that the universe is actually small.
"I went to the place where it happened." Well, no, no you didn't.
10:42 sums up the whole video
Funny thing about the Leviathan number is that you can write it as 10000000000000000…00000000000000000.
I don’t think this maths really has a purpose 🤨
I’m kinda surprised nobody commented on (6^6)^6 as an apocalyptic number.
Do lewiatana jeden krok, jeden jedyny krok - nic więcej!
11:22 David would need a way bigger slingshot to beat Graham....
The word Goliath جالوت appears in the Qur’an in 3 verses
Total sum of verse number from the end of the chapter = 111
111 * 6 = 666
and The gematria of these verses = 30522
30522 = 6 * 666th prime (4973) + 666 + 6 + 6 + 6
have you guys ever tried to find the "big"-number that is closest to Grahams Number ? (and i don't mean Grahams Number -1, but some number that has a different way of construction)
4:05 - Oh no, AI generated imagery :(
-Paintspot Infez
Wasabi!
Now that Brady has mentioned it. I'm still sad that Brady hasn't continued the Bibledex series!
Has anyone watched QI when Stephen Fry claimed the number of the beast is actually 616?
So leviathan number is ~666*10^666 🤔
The smallest known Goliath number, ᚠ₀, is about 10^(1.7718×10¹⁹⁹⁷), which is larger than the 2nd Legion's number. ᚠ₀ > ᛞ.
Why are you using 6's ?
Why is this unlisted?
Sequels always start unlisted and will be de-unlisted after a while.
@@unvergebeneid fair enough
@@deadmanrang Maybe for statistics? See how many people click the links?
My assumption is that since this is a series, it makes sense for public recommendations to not include later parts.
@@Tahgtahvit's called a 'bug' in the program
Is there a paper on finding goliath numbers that is accessible?
The number of Goliath contains 1998 consecutive numbers of 6
just before it we see the digits 4214
What is strange: In the Qur’an: Verse No. 4214, its gematria value = 1998
--------
The word Goliath جالوت appears in the Qur’an in 3 verses
Total sum of verse number from the end of the chapter = 111
111 * 6 = 666
and The gematria of these verses = 30522
30522 = 6 * 666th prime (4973) + 666 + 6 + 6 + 6
-------
The last appearance of the word Goliath “جالوت” in the Qur’an was in chapter after 1075 words from end
The strange thing is that verse number 1075 in the Qur’an its gematria = 666
---------
Why did Tony not round the Sterling approximation to 666x10^666?!?!
This is a bit weird big number to focus on, right? You could also focus on big number theory in general
5:29 That's what my ex called me!
I get goofing around with devil numbers, but what use is super factorial?
This video makes me feel smarter and dumber at the same time
Camera work was all over the place towards the end of the video
Wow I found it. What? The number that I said to be significant only to let others know I found it.
I asked Siri and checked Google and Yahoo this question could not be answered. I cannot find a post on Reddit or on Google..?
Saying that's the smallest known Goliath # implies there's a known larger one? How many are known?
How to compare large numbers?
Power tower does not help.
Are there an infinite number of weird numbers and sequences?
can someone put the smallest known goliath here
I think there is an easier proof that super legion is bigger than leviathan
10^666! < (10^666)^(10^666)
I have to ask - is there such a thing as a Chad number?
This ia actualy hilarious
mathematicians have too much time on their hands.
And it's ticking away, ticking away with their sanity...
gigachad in thumbnail
This is just mathematical naval gazing. Imagining very large numbers isn't novel, it's an indication of the decline of academia if this is what passes for PhD material.