User:Cloudy176/Department of bubbly negative numberbottles/Discussions

molpy molpy grapevine

= Talk:100 Factorial =

When using the Big Number Scientific Calculator at http://www.alpertron.com.ar/BIGCALC.HTM, a completely different number is shown (I can't get my copy and paste to work on it so you need to punch in 100! to see). Chasrob 14:40, May 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hypercalc calculator at http://ylmass.edu.hk/~mathsclub/HyperCalc/HyperCalc.html agrees with the BNSC result. It gets (approximately) 9.332621545372571 × 10157Chasrob 14:54, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Windows calculator: 9.3326215443944152681699238856267e+157. Chasrob 15:01, May 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Windows calculator: 9.3326215443944152681699238856267e+157. Chasrob 15:01, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Should this be deleted and/or merged into factorial? FB100Z &bull; talk &bull; contribs 00:37, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

= Talk:Copies notation =

This isn't new notation, it's just standard math notation. It's like having a page for a*b^c or something like that. Deedlit11 (talk) 14:31, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

We have pages for n^2 and n^n. Why not have this one? -- I want more clouds! 15:23, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Except the name "Copies notation" was made up by Jiawheinalt and did not appear in the original source. I vote delete. FB100Z &bull; talk &bull; contribs 19:41, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo........ $Jiawhein$\(a\)\(l\)\(t\) 06:59, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

= Talk:Amit =

It looks like this page was spam, as the content was just "amit". However, it looks like the title is googological, because means infinite, immeasurable or boundless. &mdash; I want more clouds! 13:03, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Googology don't study things like so. Backwards, we try to make really big numbers more clear and boundful. Ikosarakt1 (talk) 16:46, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

Someone find 'amit' in large number literature; then I'll be convinced. FB100Z &bull; talk &bull; contribs 01:00, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

= Talk:Gigoombaverse =

I follow your explaination up to the line " Repeat the number we got from putting the Ackerman Busy Beavers to the power of each other times". What exactly are we repeating THAT many times? Also you're breaking at least one cardinal rule of googology: never use a physical constant in your definition. We don't necessarily know that the number of planck cubes in the universe is finite. If the universe is infinite than your result would be infinite and wouldn't count as a large number.

Sincerely,

--Sbiis Saibian

Sorry. I tried to make it clearer. I'll also take the thing about physical constants into account.

--Billybob-Mario

= Talk:Infinityplex =

Infinityplex has 1 infinity 0|zeroes.

Jiawheinalt (talk) 11:42, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

Do you really consider infinity as a real number? I am not. Ikosarakt1 (talk) 19:58, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

There's an article by André Joyce that covers numbers like this. It's not googology, but it's pretty cool anyway. FB100Z &bull; talk &bull; contribs 20:20, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
 * Infinity is a term with different meanings in different fields. In algebra it is meaningless, and operations on infinity are invalid. In calculus, it's used in limits and improper integrals, where it acts more as a symbol than an actual entity. In set theory, there's a whole slew of infinities.
 * "Infinity" is an annoyingly ambiguous term that we avoid in googology, where we're concerned about what comes after 1. If you use infinity outside of the fast-growing hierarchy and such, the Googological Elder Gods will descend and smite you with a lightning bolt. FB100Z &bull; talk &bull; contribs 20:29, January 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * We know infinity is not a real number. Jiawheinalt (talk) 08:26, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

= Talk:Epstein system =

Just for your information, the Epstein system is not made-up; it is real. Looks like Sbiis Saibian is planning to release an article about it... &mdash; I want more clouds! 07:04, February 6, 2013 (UTC)


 * The main reason I deleted it is because the author created it with no sources, and he got all pissy when I explained to him how we have to cite things. FB100Z &bull; talk &bull; contribs 19:49, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

= Talk:How to count up to infinity =

We can't count up to infinity. We can count only to a number, while infinity is not. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 07:14, April 23, 2013 (UTC)


 * finite. $Jiawhein$\(a\)\(l\)\(t\) 08:05, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

For me, whole this page is a lot of gibberish. What does ω^2CK mean? What does αCK mean for any α? What is ω12CK? f2ω1CK(n)≈Σ2(n) isn't true approximation and Rayo's function overwhelmes all nfunctions defined. Also, λQ(Q)(Q=qcghjlxy(20121220)). LittlePeng9 (talk) 10:18, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

= Talk:Beyond Infinity =

I dont think other admins will maintain page, may be deleted. (」ﾟヘﾟ)」 Jiawheinalt (talk) 10:26, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

The are the infinities without of soures, high risk of being deleted. Jiawheinalt (talk) 10:38, February 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, I never knew this page existed. &bull; I want more clouds! 12:05, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

= Talk:Cell function =


 * see User:Cloudy176/Department of bubbly negative numberbottles/Cell function