## FANDOM

10,507 Pages

Sasquatch is a googologism based on an extension of the language of set theory. It was defined on 27th March 2017 by wikia user Emlightened.[1] It is also called Big Bigeddon. It would have been the largest valid googolism, but the community cannot currently understand it because the definition includes a serious ambiguity. Thus, that honor is given to Little Bigeddon, whose definition also includes many errors.

## Definition of Sasquatch

We work in the language $$(\in, \bar\in, <)$$, where equality is a defined symbol. $$\in$$, $$\bar\in$$ and $$<$$ are binary predicates, we also define the unary functions $$F$$ and $$R$$ from these.

We then define the Sasquatch as the largest number $$k$$ such that there is some unary formula $$\phi$$ in the language $$\{\bar\in,Q\}$$ (where $$Q(a,b) \leftrightarrow R(a)=b$$) of quantifier rank $$\leq 12\uparrow\uparrow 12$$ such that $$\exists ! a (\phi(a)) \wedge \phi(k)$$.

## Issues

The definition contains many errors. For example, $$R$$ is defined after setting the condition "$$(\bar\in,R,F)\vDash t\text{ is an ordinal}$$", and this causes circular logic. Also, $$F$$ is defined in a similar way. Maybe they are just abuses of notation for the author, but the precise meanings are quite ambiguous. For example, $$R(t)$$ should be denoted as $$f(\bar\in,R,F,t)$$ for a new function symbol $$f$$ because its definition depends on $$(\bar\in,R,F)$$.

Moreover, formulae in the language $$\{\bar\in,Q\}$$ does not admit an interpretation in $$(V,\in)$$. Therefore the truth of such formulae, which are used in the definition of Sasquatch, does not make sense. As a conclusion, Sasquatch is ill-defined.

## Sources

1. Emlightened. Sasquatch