Talk:TREE sequence

Archive 1

should we redirect TREE(3) to TREE sequence?
discuss here. i think yes. Cookiefonster (talk) 01:31, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

Should we redirect TREE(3) to TREE sequence? Yes No

I saw that for example Fish's numbers has been added to the full list twice. So, could other values of TREE(k) be in the list? I mean there certainely is values of k at wich TREE(k) would overpower for example Meameamealokkapoowa Oompa of Loader's Number, that would be cool to add a such number

Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 18:52, June 4, 2015 (UTC)Trifluoromethanesulfonic Acid

TREE(3) is the only value that is particularly notable, since it's the smallest nontrivial value of TREE(n) - TREE(1) and TREE(2) are 1 and 3 respectively. the next values aren't really in a different realm of numbers from TREE(3) if i'm not mistaken. the fish numbers are different, since each of them are really separately devised values and not just different outputs of a single function. Cookiefonster (talk) 19:24, June 4, 2015 (UTC)


 * Another thing is that other specific values of TREE(n) have never been (afaik) considered, so there is no reason to put different values of TREE into the list. LittlePeng9 (talk)