## Saturday, December 26, 2015

### Insanity or Not? A philosopher's perspective on the lower limit of Graham's Problem

Graham's number is one of the largest numbers ever conceived, having heaps of 'power towers' of exponents, even at the lowest of 64 super-exponential levels. Each level effectively becomes the super-exponent of every aspect of the next level. Even the lowest level is supposedly larger than the number of particles in the universe.

The number is a proposed solution to the mathematical problem of the number of dimensions necessary to prove that a two-dimensional figure actually exists.

In a video, Ronald Graham himself proposes that a much smaller number of dimensions may be adequate, but it is more than 12 dimensions, and past 12 we don't have the current computing power to test the problem.

My own proposition is that in a typological system the answer to a similar problem is 21 dimensions. This is a development of my previous writing How to Build a 21-Dimensional Universe, which proposes that the 21st dimension is where quadruple semantics emerges. Therefore, in terms of quadratics, the 21st dimension appears to be where 3-d or 2-d figures could be defined with certainty, e.g. because quadruple complexity is where points exist in 4-d.

For more information on How to Build a 21-Dimensional Universe, which may ultimately be useful for mathematics, see: https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-tracery-view-of-dimensionalism.html

Wikipedia also has a page that Graham recommended in one of the Numberophile videos on Youtube: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number

The primary Numberophile video on Youtube explaining Graham's Number can be found HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuigptwlVHo

Keywords: "lower bound of graham's problem"

#### 1 comment:

Nathan Coppedge said...

Some meta-mathematical questions for those that want to go further:

What sort of typology would be necessary to create definite four dimensional entities? (32?)

Does How to Build suggest new mathematical entities? (multiple semantics? subscript iterations of sets of math rules?)

At what point does semantics eliminate numbers?