Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Related Rants

Math is hard.
When you wanted to know deep learning immediately
:)) finally a good answer
Though I demonstrated a hard upperbound on the D(10) dedekind in the link here (https://devrant.com/rants/8414096/...), a value of 1.067*(10^83), which agrees with and puts a bound on this guy's estimate (https://johndcook.com/blog/2023/...) of 3.253*10^82, I've done a little more work.
It's kind of convoluted, and involves sequences related to the following page (https://oeis.org/search/...) though I won't go into detail simply because the explaination is exhausting.
Despite the large upperbound, the dedekinds have some weirdness to them, and their growth is non-intuitive. After working through my results, I actually think D(10) will turn out to be much lower than both cook's estimate and my former upperbound, that it'll specifically be found among the values of..
1.239*(10^43)
2.8507*(10^46)
2.1106*(10^50)
If this turns out to be correct (some time before the year 2100, lol), I'll explain how I came to the conclusion then.
random
dedekind numbers
math