Googleaarex failed to follow the FB100Z gentlemen rule; He does use the existing function to put into his function. Jiawhien (talk) 09:30, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
- This rule applies only on Big Number Duels. Nobody prevent us to make recursion around other peoples' functions outside of it. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 09:42, June 4, 2013 (UTC)
Rule 5[]
A. Rule 5 of the Aarex function ( article ): Arx(a,b...c,d,e) =
Arx(Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ...Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ,Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ,1)
B. Rule 5 of the Aarex function ( Aarex's site ): Arx(a,b...c,d,e) =
Arx(Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) ... Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1)) Option B will become infinity, since Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1) >>> e
Option A is weak. My suggestion for the rule is: Arx(a,b...c,d,e) =
Arx(Arx(a,b..c,d,e-1),Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1)...Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1), Arx(a,b...c,d,e-1),e-1)
Wythagoras (talk) 06:44, June 9, 2013 (UTC)
Aarex function is faster than Rayo's Function[]
If growth rate of Rayo's Function is e0CK, then aarex's function is faster, because it uses fgh ordinals beyond e0CK. -- A Large Number Googologist -- 19:24, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
Growth rate of Rayo's Function is far beyond e0CK, however it's defined. LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:32, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
Should we calculate growth rate of Rayo's Function? -- A Large Number Googologist -- 19:44, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
- Growth rate of Rayo's function is beyond everything we can reasonably define. (put aside that term "growth rate" isn't well-defined) LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:48, October 22, 2014 (UTC)
Is the growth rate of Rayo's Function fw1(n)? -- A Large Number Googologist -- 13:50, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
No.LittlePeng9 (talk) 13:52, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
ok
is fw1(n) = w? :D
-- A Large Number Googologist -- 14:27, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
- No, \(f_{\omega_1}\) is not defined because \(\omega_1\) has no fundamental sequence. This is because FS's are only defined for ordinals with cofinality \(\omega\) or lower, whereas \(\omega_1\) has cofinality \(\omega_1\). it's vel time 14:34, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
ok, here's another question:
1. is w1 the first ordinal with no defined sequence?
2. if question 1 is true, is fw1(n) the limit of FGH? -- A Large Number Googologist -- 20:09, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- 1. Specify what you mean by "sequence". If you mean fundamental sequences, then by most widely accepted definition no, because successor ordinals like 1 don't have FS.
- 2. f_w_1(n) is undefined. LittlePeng9 (talk) 20:12, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
1: is not defined because has no fundamental sequence.
-- Vel!
That.
2. Yeah, i know, but this is what i mean: Can we define fw1(n) as the limit of all FGH ordinals? (you don't understand me right?)
-- A Large Number Googologist -- 20:50, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- 1. w+1 also doesn't have fundamental sequence, but fw+1(n) is handled by special successor case. w1 isn't a successor and doesn't have fundamental sequence, so we can do nothing.
- 2. How can a function be limit of ordinals? And what are FGH ordinals even? (no, I don't understand) LittlePeng9 (talk) 20:54, October 27, 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm ending the discussion here. If you want to talk about it, we have IRC. LittlePeng9 (talk) 20:57, October 27, 2014 (UTC)