If you’ve ever stared at a calculus textbook and felt like the math was staring back with a smirk, you’ve probably met the natural logarithm. It’s common. It’s useful. But then you start nesting them. You get $ln(ln(x))$, and then you go one level deeper into the rabbit hole of ln ln ln x. Honestly, at first glance, it looks like a typo or a cruel joke played by a professor who hasn’t seen sunlight in three weeks.
It’s not a joke. It’s a function that grows so incredibly slowly that it makes a snail look like a Ferrari. If you plug in a number like a trillion, the result is still tiny. Most people assume it's just a theoretical curiosity, something for the "math for math's sake" crowd. But the reality is that triple logarithms show up in some of the most profound places in number theory and computer science. It’s basically the speed limit of the mathematical world.
The Absolute Sluggishness of ln ln ln x
Let’s talk about how slow we’re actually moving here. The natural log of $x$ is already famous for being a "slow" function. If you want $ln(x)$ to reach a value of 20, you need $x$ to be roughly 485 million. That’s a big jump.
But when you add that second "ln," things get weird. For $ln(ln(x))$ to reach 20, you need $x$ to be $e^{e^{20}}$. That’s a number so large it’s hard to even write down without your hand cramping. Now, consider ln ln ln x. To get this function to output a modest value like 5, you have to plug in a number that is roughly $e^{e^{e^5}}$.
To put that in perspective, $e^5$ is about 148. So you’re looking at $e$ raised to the power of $e^{148}$. This number is significantly larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe. It's essentially "infinity" for all practical, physical purposes, yet the function only spits out a 5. It’s mind-bogglingly lazy.
Mathematically, we define this as:
✨ Don't miss: Where is the SpaceX Launch Today: What Most People Get Wrong
$$f(x) = \ln(\ln(\ln(x)))$$
The domain is also quite restrictive. Since you can't take the log of a non-positive number, $ln(x)$ must be greater than zero, which means $x > 1$. But then, for the second log, $ln(ln(x))$ must be greater than zero, meaning $ln(x) > 1$, so $x > e$. For the third log, $ln(ln(ln(x)))$ to be defined for positive values, the input has to be even larger. Specifically, the function is only defined for $x > e^e$, which is approximately 15.154. If you try to plug in 10, the math breaks.
Where Does This Actually Show Up?
You might think nobody uses this. You'd be wrong. In the world of prime numbers, specifically the Prime Number Theorem and the distribution of primes, these nested logs are everywhere.
The legendary mathematician Paul Erdős, who was basically the king of "weird" math, used these triple logs frequently in probabilistic number theory. One of the most famous examples is the Law of the Iterated Logarithm. It describes the fluctuations of a random walk. If you’re flipping a coin and tracking how far you stray from the expected 50/50 split, the "limit" of those fluctuations is bounded by a function involving—you guessed it—$ln(ln(n))$. While that's a double log, the triple log often appears in the "error terms" or the finer details of how these distributions settle over time.
💡 You might also like: The Riemann Hypothesis: Why We Still Can’t Solve Math’s Most Expensive Problem
Think of it this way:
In the study of highly composite numbers or the distribution of divisors, mathematicians need to describe how things behave as $x$ approaches infinity. Often, a single $ln$ isn't precise enough. A double $ln$ gets closer. But to really capture the "tail" of the data, they have to use ln ln ln x. It’s the tool of choice for measuring things that grow at the slowest possible rate without being constant.
Why Computer Scientists Care (Sorta)
In big-O notation, which is how we measure the efficiency of code, we usually talk about $O(n)$ or $O(log n)$. If you write an algorithm that runs in $O(log n)$, you're a hero. It means your code is fast.
But there are theoretical data structures that run in things like $O(log(log(log n)))$. In a practical sense, an algorithm with $O(ln ln ln x)$ complexity is virtually indistinguishable from a constant time algorithm $O(1)$. Why? Because as we established, you could be processing a data set the size of the entire internet, and the "triple log" factor would still be a number like 3 or 4.
Technically, it's not constant. It does get slower as $n$ grows. But it grows so slowly that for any data set humanity will ever produce, it never changes enough to matter. It's the "almost constant" time complexity.
The Weird Connection to Prime Numbers
One of the most intense uses of this function is in the Hardy-Ramanujan Theorem. This theorem tells us about the number of distinct prime factors of an integer $n$. If you pick a random large number, how many prime factors does it have?
Surprisingly, the "normal order" of the number of distinct prime factors is $ln(ln(n))$. But when you look at the distribution—how much the actual number of factors varies from that average—the standard deviation involves complex relations where the triple log can pop up in the refined estimates.
👉 See also: Converting .1 nm to m: Why This Tiny Measurement Actually Matters
Rosser's theorem also uses these logs to provide bounds for the $n$-th prime number. It’s all about precision. When you are dealing with the infinite expanse of numbers, the difference between $ln(x)$ and $ln(ln(ln(x)))$ is the difference between a broad brushstroke and a surgical scalpel.
Common Pitfalls and Mistakes
Usually, people mess up the domain. They forget that you can't just shove any number into a triple log. If $x$ is 2, $ln(2)$ is about 0.69. You can't take the $ln(0.69)$ without getting a negative number. And you definitely can't take the log of that negative number (at least not in the realm of real numbers).
Another mistake is assuming it behaves like a linear function at high values. It doesn't. Even though it looks flat on a graph, it is strictly increasing. It never hits a ceiling. It will eventually reach a billion, but the universe will likely end before it does.
Actionable Takeaways for Math Students
If you're encountering ln ln ln x in a homework assignment or a research paper, don't panic. It's just a tool for extreme scaling.
- Check your domain first: Always ensure $x > e^e$ before you start calculating.
- Think of it as a "compressor": It takes astronomical numbers and squashes them into tiny, manageable single digits.
- Visualize the growth: If you’re graphing it, use a logarithmic scale for the x-axis, or you’ll just see what looks like a horizontal line.
- Recognize the context: If you see this in a paper, the author is likely talking about "asymptotic behavior"—they are describing what happens when numbers get so big they stop making sense.
Understanding the triple log isn't about memorizing a formula; it's about appreciating the scale of the mathematical universe. It reminds us that there's a huge gap between "very slow" and "stopped." Even the most sluggish functions have a job to do in defining the limits of what we know about numbers.