Thread replies: 24
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4
File: 467a1c5c71e418299c86644fa7988bcb[1].png (3KB, 355x155px) Image search:
[Google]
![467a1c5c71e418299c86644fa7988bcb[1].png](https://cdn.4archive.org/sci/image/1465/633/1465633949681.png "467a1c5c71e418299c86644fa7988bcb[1]")
3KB, 355x155px
Do you think humanity will never know what the first digit of Graham's number is? (In base 10)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20765/the-problem-of-finding-the-first-digit-in-grahams-number
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20765/the-problem-of-finding-the-first-digit-in-grahams-number
https://www.reddit.com/r/mathematics/comments/268wt6/can_we_know_the_first_digit_of_grahams_number/
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/364949/first-n-digits-of-grahams-number
I've checked a few resources, and it looks like it's hopeless for now. The problem is equivalent to finding the fractional part of an extremely large multiple of log(3).
There are some very hard problems in mathematics, but I think that in a few thousand years, nearly all of them will be solved. But hard computation problems are different; Even if humans will live for another million years, it's possible that it still won't be resolved.
>>
>>8136478
it literally does not matter.
This issue is 100% worthless.
>>
>>8136478
quantum computing might help
>>
>>8136564
No. I mean, sure, who knows, maybe it will, but not in the sense that it would allow us to brute-force the problem.
>>
>>8136478
Umm is this bait? it's 3
>>
>>8136745
the leftmost digit not the rightmost. I get it confused too.
>>
idk why no one just asks this graham person what the number is
>>
>>8136843
yeah why doesnt riemann just tell us where the zeroes are, what a fucking douche
>>
>>8136986
Hes dead, but grahm isnt
Stupid fucking retard
>>
>>8136478
>huir whats the last digit of pi?
>>
>>8136993
but the zeroes are imaginary so we just imagine riemann and ask him duh
>>
>>8137112
no i think the problem is a little more complex than that
>
>
>
;^)
>>
>>8136478
Perhaps, although I don't think it's likely.
I think we might find out BB(5) one day though
>>
I know it's between 0 and 9
>>
>>8137170
I'm pretty sure Grothendieck managed in 1998 to raise the upper bound to 1, so it's between 1 and 9.
>>
File: 1464991380281.jpg (4KB, 125x120px)
4KB, 125x120px
>>8137172
>>8137170
rekt
>>
What a fucking pointless problem.
>>
File: IMG_1466.jpg (142KB, 674x1200px) Image search:
[Google]
142KB, 674x1200px
>>8137221
you're fucking pointless and I'm gonna pull Ack(G64, G64) cocks out of your ass
>>
It's 5, I'll publish the paper in three months.
>>
File: 1464383594118.jpg (45KB, 736x492px) Image search:
[Google]
45KB, 736x492px
>>8137112
This is the first post on /sci/ in like months that's made me genuinely laugh. Thanks, Anon.
>>
>>8137017
But pi doesn't have a last digit. Graham's number has a first digit.
Poor example supporting a vague response to a pointless question. Only love for /sci/
>>
>>8137268
Cool
>>
Do you think humanity will ever know R(6,6)?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey%27s_theorem
Thread posts: 24
Thread images: 4
Thread images: 4