Add new comment

Want facts and want them fast? Our Maths in a minute series explores key mathematical concepts in just a few words.
A basic introduction to the most powerful tools in science and enginnering.
As COP28, the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, kicks off we look at how maths can help understand the climate crisis.
How do you create dramatic film out of mathematics? We find out with writer and director Timothy Lanzone.
Mathematics plays a central role in understanding how infectious diseases spread. This collection of articles looks at some basic concepts in epidemiology to help you understand this fascinating and important field, and set you up for further study.
Find out why the formula we use to work out conditional probabilities is true!
I'm not a mathematician  far from it. Every time I come back to Graham's number I can't get my head around Knuth's uparrow notation. I interpreted it in my own way, but I have a feeling I've got it wrong. The way I thought of it is that:
Step 1: 3^3 = 27. Take that result (27) and make it the new power:
Step 2: 3^27 = 7.6 trillion. Take that result (7.6T) and make it the new power:
Step 3: 3^7.6T = ? (An "Impossibly Huge Number.") Take that result (I.H.N) and make it the new power:
Step 4: 3^I.H.N = ? (A "Savagely Huge Number.") Take that result (S.H.N) and make it the new power:
Step 5: 3^S.H.N = ? And so on, and so on. (I forget which one would be "G1", step 4 or step 5 maybe)
 What I'd like to know is whether this way of looking at it is right or not. Obviously you can't write anything down without coming up with "Magnificently Ridiculous Names" for these numbers so it defeats the object, but I'm trying to get my head around the process.
Thanks in advance for any help, I really appreciate it.