Comments by "Digital Footballer" (@digitalfootballer9032) on "TREE(3) (extra footage) - Numberphile" video.
-
2
-
Interestingly, TREE(3) then must be the largest number (at least in concept since we don't know the actual proof) that we know of in existence that does not use any kind exponential operation to reach its sum. Graham's number does, it uses the arrow function, as well as Loaders number uses functions to increase. TREE (3), although he uses "TREE(x)" as a function, in it of itself uses no functions. It is just how many ways can you arrange these three items, not to the power of anything, it is just simple, yet incomprehensible at the same time!
Edit : I should say not TREE (3), but the concept of the TREE problem itself yields the largest results, because obviously TREE (4), or TREE (googol) is larger. One might argue that TREE itself is a function, and yes it can be used as one...but at it's "roots", TREE is actually just a game that increases one result at a time (though be it more time than the existence of the universe), but not exponential results. At no point in hypothetically solving TREE are you raising anything to a higher exponential power.
2