Is the blog post considered a valid source for this notation article? ARsygo (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- No, and hence I will remove it. On the other hand, it also have an external link. Although the way to cite it is not valid as the policy requires an appropriate way to put ref tags, I try to fix it.
- p-adic 00:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I expanded it. If anything is bad, please discuss it here. A possible issue is whether we should write the reason why the lack of the associativity causes two or more ways to parse expressions. But this ill-definedness frequently occurs when a user import a personal website which is not peer-reviewed. Therefore it is good to create an article on associativity and to link it. In my opinion, the current description is sufficient, though.
- p-adic 00:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
What are the two ways of solving it?[]
I want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumuji (talk • contribs)
- Hello, and thank you for contributing Googology Wiki! I am deeply sorry to say this but please keep in mind that we are required to sign when we write a comment.
- As I have already told you here, the combination of one or more binary operator with infix notation is always ambiguous unless you specify the associativity law or use parentheses to clarify the syntax. Say, a@b^(a@b)a@b can mean
- (a@(b^(a@b)))*(a@b)
- ((a@(b^(a@b)))*a)@b
- (a@b)^(a@b)*(a@b)
- (a@b)^(a@b)(a@b)
- and so on. I clarify that even if you intend precisely one of them in you mind, it does not mean it is automatically well-defined because what we care is how it is defined but not how it is intended to work. Does this explanation make sense for you? If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask us. You can also see common failures related to your definition here.
- I note that if you want to change or remove correct and sourced descritions in the article instead of adding new informations (especially when you replaced the source), you need to ask other users to discuss it. What we can do without discussion instead is to add the updated definition, and clarify that it is the updated definition by keeping the original definition. If you want to remove the original definition, you can ask the discussion here instead of silently removing it. (I believe that you are not the one who does it, and I am sorry about this annoying and redundant explanation. However, we had an awful troll who tried to remove anything he or she disliked. We can remove contents only after we argue on the removal.) You can check Googology Wiki:Guideline#Why do we need retrieval date? for more details on how to write an article based on a personal website.
- p-adic 09:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
oh ok, so basically it should be a=>ab=b in chained arrow notation. I don’t know how to use latex User:Mumuji 02:26, 29 April 2021(UTC)
- If you want to add a matheatical formula in latex to the article, please feel free to ask us to do so instead by clarifying what to add. Then we will convert what you want to add into latex, and add it to the article. Then you can learn how to write latex.
- p-adic 02:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- So is it possible to change a^(ab)b into a ↑b c ? Please
- User:Mumuji 06:39 29 April 2021 UTC
- We can replace a^(ab)b by \(a \uparrow^b c\), but the original source uses a^(ab)b rather than \(a \uparrow^b c\). What we need to describe is the original definition in the source, and hence it is not good to replace a^(ab)b in the explanation of the original definition by \(a \uparrow^b c\). If you want to replace a^(ab)b in an explanation outside the original definition by \(a \uparrow^b c\), then it is possible because it does not change the description of the original definition. What do you want us to do or want to do by yourself?
- p-adic 07:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Would it be possible for me to update the website and change the description? Or is that not possible? Mumuji 11:14 29 April 2021 UTC
- It is possible for you to update the website, because it is your own website. This wiki has no right to force you to stop updating your website. On the other hand, if you want to change the description in this wiki instead of simply adding information, you need to discuss how you want to change here. Since this wiki is a place for collecting googology including past mistakes by the creators, it is not recommended to simply delete or replace the original definition. But if you have some reasonable justification of the deletion or replacement, then users will agree with it after discussion. So, please share your idea about how to change the article. Also, in order to avoid the repetition of the changes, please check the guideline page which I quoted above. When we write an article based on a non-peer-reviewed source by ourselves, such a regret frequently occurs.
- p-adic 13:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Do it Now[]
List the numbers in the form \(2@n\) 1-10—Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyStaysForever (talk • contribs) Already done. Mumuji Penguin (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC) (on my website, that is)
Peer review question[]
Does this notation considered not peer-reviewed? ARsygo (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Usually, personal web sites are not peer-reviewed. I note that there are trusted personal web sites, but if an article on a number or a notation is created by the creator himelf or herself and is based on young personal web sites, then it is reasonable to guess that the source is not trusted. So, I think that it fits {{Not peer-reviewed}}, because the descriptions are mainly based on the creator's subjective point of views,
- p-adic 04:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)