User talk:80.98.179.160

Creation of unsourced articles
Hello, it appears that you have created articles for numbers without sources. Articles about numbers must be sourced using the  tags. The articles you have created have been nominated for deletion because of this. Next time, create articles with sources. Alternatively, you can create an account and create a blog post and add your numbers there. Thank you. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:58, October 6, 2017 (UTC)

Caution
If you continue to create articles without sources, you may be blocked from editing. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:06, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

testing
In the future, please use the Sandbox for editing tests. Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:22, October 27, 2017 (UTC)

Your Profile Page
I suppose you could construct a system of mathematics in which $$2\cdot\omega\neq\omega$$, but in the form of ordinal arithmetic used the most, $$\omega\cdot 2\neq2\cdot\omega$$ and $$2\cdot\omega=\omega$$. This is built into the central axioms which govern ordinal arithmetic. Believing the contrary is logically wrong, but it is an understandable objection if you are new to ordinals. If you have any questions I'll answer them to the best of my ability. Edwin Shade (talk) 23:59, November 22, 2017 (UTC)
 * But I already saw listing \(\omega2\) as \(2\omega\), after \(\omega\) in Infinities page of Appendix A of SbS' One to Infinity (Infinities). And a video showed \(3\omega\) distinct from \(\omega\) (This video was it)!!! 80.98.179.160 09:30, November 23, 2017 (UTC)
 * People may write $$2\omega$$ so that what they say can be more easily understood by those who don't know ordinal arithmetic, or because they do not understand it correctly themselves. In both the case of Saibian and the PBS Infinite Series I feel they wrote $$2\omega$$ just for clarity, but it is not correct. This screenshot of the comment section shows a person addressing this error, another person's response, and then the response of the channel who uploaded the video saying they are indeed right. Edwin Shade (talk) 23:07, November 26, 2017 (UTC)
 * And SbS even wrote \(3\omega\) after \(\omega\), and \(2\omega^2\) after \(\omega^2\). And SbS wrote \(\varepsilon_0\) as \(\varphi(0,1)\), which I suppose is wrong, as it is just \(\omega\). Same with \(\zeta_0\), which he wrote as \(\varphi(0,2)\), which is actually \(\omega^2\), writable as \(\omega\omega\). Same with the Feferman-Schütte ordinal, \(\Gamma_0\), which was written as \(\varphi(0,0,1)\), which again is \(\omega\), while the \(\Gamma_0\) is \(\varphi(1,0,0)\). And he listed \(\omega^\omega\) (true fundamental sequence: \(\omega,\omega^2,\omega^3,\cdots\)), as \(\varphi(\omega,0)\) (true fundamental sequence: \(\varphi(1,0),\varphi(2,0),\varphi(3,0),\cdots\)). There was "reverse Veblen notation" (RVN) used, which is truly incorrect, as the most natural use is nonzero arguments before zeroes. However, there were, despite RVN, some correct values. (for example, \(\varepsilon_1=\varphi(1,1)\)), and \(\varepsilon_{\varepsilon_0}=\varphi(\varphi(0,1),1)\) in RVN, which is \(\varphi(\omega,1)=\varepsilon_\omega\) (according to SbS). 80.98.179.160 08:38, November 27, 2017 (UTC)