User talk:Cookiefonster

Uhhh, why did you put an absolute infinity? Also, the numbers that Bowers has defined from triakulus to meameamealokkapoowa oompa have no value. King2218 (talk) 23:00, June 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * THEY DO NOW you're.so.pretty! 01:39, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS FROM TRIAKULUS TO MEAMEAMEALOKKAPOOWA OOMPA ARE ON BOWERS'S SITE. DEFINE THEM ON YOUR PAGE FIRST OR ELSE. King2218 (talk) 01:55, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * @King2218 because I can. I'm thinking of pointing out that absolute infinity is really just a concept and not a cardinal or ordinal or anything. And I'll point out that people have formalized the numbers (not sure how far).
 * Oh ok. Also, if and only if an array starts with two 2's (and not one 2), the value of the array is 4. (Btw, I found your first name) King2218 (talk) 06:04, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * 2-3 entries: needs to start with two 2's
 * 4+ entries: needs to start with only one 2, because it must decompose to 2 X, where X is a whole number, which in turn decomposes to 2{2{2{2{2.....{2}.....}2}2}2}2}2, which we know is equal to 4. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 11:46, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops. I [insert action here] corrected :P (but I am right for 2 to 3 entries) King2218 (talk) 12:09, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, updated the entry for 2. I hope I'll be able to go up to at least 10,000 in the list by the end of today. (I actually have been working on it since February) WikiRigbyDude (talk) 13:00, June 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * @FB100Z Does it go all the way to meameamealokkapoowa oompa? WikiRigbyDude (talk) 14:18, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * It most likely does, but our proofs haven't reached L-space yet. you're.so.pretty! 15:03, June 3, 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now, seems like with our proofs we can go as far as {X,X,1,2} space, which we know is equivalent to #^^^# in xE^.

SpongeBob's number
Did you know that 29,998,559,671,349 is the 1,000,075,255,175th prime? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:20, June 7, 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? I guess I'll put that in. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 02:53, June 8, 2014 (UTC)

So I found that you added another SpongeBob-related number on your list. I used this to find out that 46,853 is also prime. YOU'RE WELCOME -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 05:40, September 2, 2014 (UTC)


 * done WikiRigbyDude (talk) 11:57, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Pointless corrections

 * The name "lcillion" was not given by Aarex; it was already on Skynet.
 * About the lynz: It's equal to 100 at February 26, 1998 and the value doubled every day, but that's not the end of the story. On September 17th, 1998, it is rounded to 1063, and the value squared every day after that. So the lynz is equal to:
 * 10^(63*2^198) = 10^10^61.40327969 at the time of your birth;
 * 10^(63*2^3732) = 10^10^1125.243284 when Googology Wiki was founded;
 * 10^(63*2^5732) = 10^10^1727.303276 when you created your googology website.
 * The correct title for the Schoolhouse Rock! song is "My Hero, Zero".
 * Biggol is slightly larger than gugolthra, baggol > gugoltesla, etc. up to bagol > gugolocta.
 * "Random dudes from Texas have done better" was actually said by FB100Z.

Also, link to part 3 at the end of part 2, please? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 12:02, July 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * Based on the information above, your website was created exactly 2,000 days after Googology Wiki was founded. Is it coincidence or did you calculate that before creating your website? Wythagoras (talk) 12:14, July 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * @Cloudy Everything was fixed except for lynz (I'm using the second lynz).
 * @Wyth coincidence WikiRigbyDude (talk) 12:18, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the feeling that you actually waited for that before you created your site. The chances of creating your site 2000 days after the creation of Googology Wiki is pretty low. Maybe 1/18250? (no idea) King2218 (talk) 12:36, July 13, 2014 (UTC)


 * I swear to God it was a coincidence. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 12:39, July 13, 2014 (UTC)
 * King, how did you get 1/18250? That is far to low. Assuming he was planning on creating it in this year, it is already 1/365, and assuming he would do it in the same month 1/31. Wythagoras (talk) 16:05, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, If you look over 50 years the chance is 1/18250. Wythagoras (talk) 16:07, July 25, 2014 (UTC)

Merology
On the entry for -9:


 * Andre Joyce coined two systems he dubs merology to turn words into numbers by letters; both were intended to turn "zero" into 0, "one" into 1, etc. The first, more complicated system, doesn't even remotely work.

Um, it works. can you give me an example of it not working? you're.so.pretty! 02:23, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

http://michaelhalm.tripod.com/a_new_numerology.htm

Plug in zero: undefined, no r number is given

Plug in one: 152,587,890,625,000/7623 * 10 * 1089/4 ~ 5.45e13

If 1089/200 for "ne" is used: 152,587,890,625,000/7623 * 1089/200 ~ 1.09e11

Plug in two: 1 * 1089/100 * 152,587,890,625,000/7623 ~ 2.18e11 WikiRigbyDude (talk) 11:58, August 27, 2014 (UTC)

Name
Hey!

I see you changed your name...

Alejandro Magno (talk) 22:32, September 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * Made it into a new section for you. I changed my name because I wanted my name here to be the same as my username on most other websites. Cookiefonster (talk) 22:55, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. -- A Large Number Googologist -- 19:12, September 19, 2014 (UTC)

irc
you missed me by 30 seconds it's vel time 21:52, September 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * well, i was supposed to be doing homework :P Cookiefonster (talk) 21:59, September 17, 2014 (UTC)

Holy. Fucking. Shit.
https://twitter.com/MomsAgainstGam it's vel time 22:25, September 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * this makes me more suspicious O_o Cookiefonster (talk) 22:57, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * a deactivated account can be easily reactivated within 30 days. so we'll see what happens in a month it's vel time 04:23, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

The Vels
THE VELS by Edgar Allen Poe

I

Hear the sledges with the vels - Silver vels! What a world of merriment their melody foretells! How they tinkle, tinkle, tinkle, In the icy air of night! While the stars that oversprinkle All the heavens, seem to twinkle With a crystalline delight; Keeping time, time, time, In a sort of Runic rhyme, To the tintinnabulation that so musically wells From the vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels - From the jingling and the tinkling of the vels.

II

Hear the mellow wedding vels - Golden vels! What a world of happiness their harmony foretells! Through the balmy air of night How they ring out their delight! - From the molten - golden notes, And all in tune, What a liquid ditty floats To the turtle - dove that listens, while she gloats On the moon! Oh, from out the sounding cells, What a gush of euphony voluminously wells! How it swells! How it dwells On the Future! - how it tells Of the rapture that impels To the swinging and the ringing Of the vels, vels, vels - Of the vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels - To the rhyming and the chiming of the vels!

III

Hear the loud alarum vels - Brazen vels! What a tale of terror, now, their turbulency tells! In the startled ear of night How they scream out their affright! Too much horrified to speak, They can only shriek, shriek, Out of tune, In a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire, In a mad expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire, Leaping higher, higher, higher, With a desperate desire, And a resolute endeavor Now - now to sit, or never, By the side of the pale - faced moon. Oh, the vels, vels, vels! What a tale their terror tells Of Despair! How they clang, and clash and roar! What a horror they outpour On the bosom of the palpitating air! Yet the ear, it fully knows, By the twanging, And the clanging, How the danger ebbs and flows; Yet the ear distinctly tells, In the jangling, And the wrangling, How the danger sinks and swells, By the sinking or the swelling in the anger of the vels - Of the vels - Of the vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels - In the clamor and the clanging of the vels!

IV

Hear the tolling of the vels - Iron vels! What a world of solemn thought their monody compels! In the silence of the night, How we shiver with affright At the melancholy menace of their tone! For every sound that floats From the rust within their throats Is a groan. And the people - ah, the people - They that dwell up in the steeple, All alone, And who, tolling, tolling, tolling, In that muffled monotone, Feel a glory in so rolling On the human heart a stone - They are neither man nor woman - They are neither brute nor human - They are Ghouls: - And their king it is who tolls: - And he rolls, rolls, rolls, Rolls A paean from the vels! And his merry bosom swells With the paean of the vels! And he dances, and he yells; Keeping time, time, time, In a sort of Runic rhyme, To the paean of the vels: - Of the vels: Keeping time, time, time In a sort of Runic rhyme, To the throbbing of the vels - Of the vels, vels, vels: - To the sobbing of the vels: - Keeping time, time, time, As he knells, knells, knells, In a happy Runic rhyme, To the rolling of the vels - Of the vels, vels, vels - To the tolling of the vels - Of the vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, vels, - To the moaning and the groaning of the vels.

it's vel time 14:29, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

vels are love, vels are life (not in the shrek sense) Cookiefonster (talk) 14:31, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

vel gibson, vel's hole, vels bells, ninth circle of vel, the farmer in the vel, tubular vels, not a chance in vel, ... it's vel time 14:34, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

vel is everything -- A Large Number Googologist -- 22:54, October 1, 2014 (UTC)

Error on your Large Number List
https://sites.google.com/site/pointlesslargenumberstuff/home/4/pgln4

You duplicated Goobaquindingia

Also, {X,100(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)2} & 10 = Goobasesixtia = {X,100(1)(1)...[6 (1)s]...(1)(1)2} & 10

Forget to add signature. -- A Large Number Googologist -- 18:39, October 16, 2014 (UTC)


 * fixed Cookiefonster (talk) 18:40, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

i see.

thanks anyways

by the way, is the beta aviable? i have seen your BHO entry in PGLN4, and well...there. -- A Large Number Googologist -- 18:44, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

no i won't publish it till it's ready Cookiefonster (talk) 18:59, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

ok, thanks -- A Large Number Googologist -- 19:12, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

Pointless corrections 2
Regarding your timeline: -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 01:33, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
 * Sbiis Saibian knew this wiki existed as early as 2009.
 * Ace45954's adminship was not given by FB100Z. It was given by a Wikia Staff as an adoption request.


 * fixed Cookiefonster (talk) 18:10, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

geromy
geromy -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 03:49, October 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * yes, i found it rather odd that comic number 30's section had no mention of geromy Cookiefonster (talk) 12:10, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

oh my god, you and i know what is meant with growth rate of a function
Every intuitive notion of "growth rate" can pretty much fail when we get to non-recursive ordinals and functions. There are tons and tons and TONS of functions which are between all computable functions and BB function. Some of them might even be, in a way, as far from BB as computable functions are. So why say that BB function has order type \(omega_1^\text{CK}\), while there are significantly weaker functions which are uncomputable too?

From other things, even if we agreed on order type of BB, there are reasons for which we shouldn't say that BB2 has order type \(\omega_2^\text{CK}\), so only other natural choice is, I suppose, \(\omega_1^{CK}2\), but on the other hand, it seems intuitive that when we have access to things like halting oracle, then we can bigger amount of recursion than without it.

So, as far as I guess I could agree on using the term "growth rate" for functions of reasonably small recursive "order type", I'm fully against using it for uncomputable functions.

Context for everyone other than me and cf: how did goucher misinterpret rayo's number?  He thought it's about first order arithmetic  Not first order set theory ok but was he right that rayo's function if it was first order arithmetic instead of fost was growth rate w_w^CK?  No  Well  Define growth rate, first of all, but we came to the conclusion that ordinals beyond w_1^CK are beyond the reach  With "beyond" I mean something of order w_2^CK or more oh my god, you and i know what is meant with growth rate of a function LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:40, November 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * wow, i fucking completely forgot that growth rate is way more complex of a concept for uncomputable functions Cookiefonster (talk) 19:42, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * It's quite baffling that such an intuitively simple idea as "functions growing faster than each other" ends up running into a fundamental limitation of mathematics it's vel time 04:00, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

pgln ending beta when?
When will we get the beta of late part 6 and part 7 of Pointless Gigantic List of Numbers? After you make some progress on BEAF? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:11, December 3, 2014 (UTC)


 * i've been doing a lot of other work on my site, so i'm not sure. the late p6 is almost done though. Cookiefonster (talk) 20:08, December 3, 2014 (UTC)

Chat
hi can u come to chat

sign your comments with ~, and usually the irc is used as a chat. Cookiefonster (talk) 17:19, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

come to chat


 * You are not here to tell others what to do. LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:04, December 16, 2014 (UTC)
 * ::the "sign comments with ~ " is a norm amongst pretty much all wikis. Cookiefonster (talk) 18:10, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

come to chat

goto the chat


 * I believe this counts as harassing other users. You can get banned for this. Take this as a warning. LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:19, December 16, 2014 (UTC)

BIG FOOT
how much is BIG FOOT? i stil dont get it.

Number 1, when leaving a new message on someone's talk page, you should click the "New section" button. Number 2, sign your comments for God's sake. Anyway, BIG FOOT is not something you can just understand in 5 seconds. To really understand it you need to first understand first-order set theory itself, then understand exactly what FOOT is. Cookiefonster (talk) 14:41, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

is it posible to make a number bigger than BIG FOOT >.<?

also congrats on 1k edits


 * Yes it's possible, because there is no largest number. LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:50, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
 * ::The thing is, nobody would recognize you for doing something like BIG FOOT + 1 - anyone could come up with that and that's not a legitimate retort to BIG FOOT. To make a truly larger number you would need to extend the theory used to define the number itself, which is what LittlePeng9 did. Cookiefonster (talk) 14:54, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

can you give me an example of how much is BIG FOOT? (like 10000000000000000000000000000000010000000000000000000000000 or smthing)


 * I'll tell you this: it's far bigger than anything you can come up with, unless you involve the number itself. LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:55, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

come to irc plz i have figured it out i want to tell u something ;-;


 * FOR FUCK'S SAKE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS Cookiefonster (talk) 14:54, December 18, 2014 (UTC)

goto irc

Veblen function
Did you forget to repair the formula φ(α,β+1)[n] = φ(α,φ(α,β)+1) on your site? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 13:16, December 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * He did fix it, it now says φ(α,β+1)[n] = φ(α[n],φ(α,β)+1) LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:23, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of that, your definition of multi-variable Veblen function is wrong, e.g. it gives \(\phi(1,1)=\varepsilon_0^\omega\). LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:59, December 31, 2014 (UTC)

new pic
nice pic King2218 (talk) 15:39, January 13, 2015 (UTC)