Talk: Googology Wiki

Discuss the Main Page here. Use the forums for general discussion of the wiki or googology.

Why does it say 0% of your goal

it is soooooo weird and cool you have like 400 pages why is that? 123chess456 07:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That was put there as a joke. 450 pages is only a very tiny fraction of the googol, which, when rounded, is about 0% of our "goal," which is one googol pages. Of course, to make even 1% of the goal, I'm going to need almost more space than there exists in the known universe.

As for having 450 pages, that is a result of the unimaginable creativity and devotion of Jonathan Bowers. Nearly half of the pages are Jonathan-Bowers-numbers. Followed by 100 zeroestalkcontribs<span style=" color:white; background-color:gray; padding:2px; border-top:thin solid black; border-bottom:thin solid black; ?">talkcontribs 14:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well then make more pages, numbers etc 123chess456 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably even if you have blank pages counted. 80.98.179.160 17:07, November 15, 2017 (UTC)

Yay!

The old goal is back Ace45954 20:49, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Setting realistic goals is the way to productivity :D FB100Z • talk • contribs 00:32, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself. Ace45954 20:28, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

It's back to Googol - 0% xD Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 10:51, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Math is Fun.

Math is Fun!!! $10^{100}$

Googleaarex 19:48, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

T.T

Wikia crapped on our main page :< FB100Z • talk • contribs 17:45, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Main page jokes

Since not a whole lot of people read this wiki with really serious intent, and googology is a whimsical study anyway, it's okay if we joke around on the Main Page a bit, as evidenced by the Article Count Progress and the brand-new GoogolNews. FB100Z • talk • contribs 03:32, December 13, 2012 (UTC)

Now we have a German Googology Wiki, how about requesting an interlanguage link? — I want more clouds! 02:30, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

Why not? FB100Z • talk • contribs 02:34, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

No edits?

there are no edits in the main page for few months, can add some content? the more users edit the page, the better it is. JiawhienIsBackNoEvadeBlockOnceAgainIComeBack (talk) 07:08, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Unless you have something specific in mind, there's no real point in editing the page. FB100Z • talk • contribs 07:07, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone replace the 99.99999 ... 99999% with 0.00000 ... 00003% to give an approximation of the actual progress. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 23:37, April 1, 2014 (UTC)

April Fools' is over. you're.so.pretty! 00:29, April 2, 2014 (UTC)

arrows

WAT HAPEND TO DEM LITL WIKI ICONN King2218 (talk) 07:41, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

ARROWS -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 08:22, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

That was there for like...five and a half years? It needed an update. you're.so.pretty! 16:30, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd be absolutely fine if that didn't change. LittlePeng9 (talk) 16:51, May 26, 2014 (UTC)

So, by the law of contrapositives: if you're not absolutely fine, it did change? you're.so.pretty! 04:49, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But I am absolutely fine, so that implies nothing. LittlePeng9 (talk) 05:08, May 27, 2014 (UTC)

reddit

/r/InternetIsBeautiful found our Article Count Progress you're.so.pretty! 03:09, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Internet is so beautiful, isn't it? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:13, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

I love how one commenter asked if any are bigger than Graham's number. Of course some are - w+1 in the fast growing hierarchy is fucking tiny. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 13:35, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Since a lot of people think of "Graham's Number" as the essential large number, I think that we should clarify on a bunch of pages that we've exceeded it. Imagine a random visitor popping into our page on SCG without much background... you're.so.pretty! 21:47, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

more arrows

seriously though you can't just raise googology to itself wiki times King2218 (talk) 09:26, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

you can if you're not a pedantic smartass! you're.so.pretty! 11:11, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

ok but is it not made using lAtEx? King2218 (talk) 11:15, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

nope. i used an image editor you're.so.pretty! 11:16, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

that implies that lAtEx is an image editor King2218 (talk) 16:41, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

you're.so.pretty! 19:05, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

I initially tried to change the L into an arrow, but with the surrounding O's it looked too much like a penis. you're.so.pretty! 19:35, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for considering a function is finished or abandoned.

A function is considered finished if it has not been worked on by the creator for at least a year. A function is considered abandoned if it is still work in progress and has not been worked by the creator on for a year.

Bubby3 (talk) 20:59, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

This page is for discussing changes to the main page and not for discussion of the wiki in general. Please go to the forums. -- v e l! 05:48, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

also what is the point of these criteria. -- v e l! 05:52, October 23, 2015 (UTC)

how can you convert {A,B,C (1) 2} to {?,? (1) 2} ?

We use the rule {A, B, C (1) 2} = {A, {A, B-1, C (1) 2}, C-1 (1) 2}. So for example,

{A, 4, 2 (1) 2} = {A, {A, 3, 2 (1) 2}, 1 (1) 2} = {A, {A, {A, 2, 2 (1) 2}, 1 (1) 2} (1) 2} = {A, {A, {A, {A, 1, 2 (1) 2}, 1 (1) 2} (1) 2} (1) 2} = {A, {A, {A, A (1) 2} (1) 2} (1) 2}. Deedlit11 (talk) 05:58, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

7000 pages!

And it is on ExE category. AarexWikia04 - 23:59, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

The Secret Life of a Googologist

I've noticed that pretty much everywhere, googologists are so secretive. Even looking at googology.weebly.com, the man who runs it goes by Storm and does not leave any contact information. Why is that? What are most googologists so secluded in regards to letting others know who they are? Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 01:28, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Alright Nathan, we were hoping you wouldn't find out - but you got us. Googology is actually a clandestine cover-up for a modern-day Illuminati organization fully bent on world domination. The notations are cleverly designed secret languages known only by the initiates and the Googologists you thought were real people are just specially designed programs we invented to mislead suspicious people. Bowers is in fact a highly sophisticated android whose origin was in a dark warehouse one August night 50 years ago, surrounded by a team of highly trained technicians. He has been built for the time when all googologists will be called together to enact the plan for world domination, and...

Okay, seriously it is probably because recreational mathematics is never really done for the sake of recognition. Take Grigori Perelman, whose work in topology earned him the Field's medal and an offer of $1,000,000 for the Millennium Prize associated with the solution of the Poincaré conjecture. He refused both prizes and the money associated with the latter, and today lives a secluded life. Now, he may be an extreme case, but no mathematician has really become well known for wanting to be, only those who have a sincere interest in mathematics have become well known.

In the case of googologists, there is an added level of "secrecy" because many users on this site are far too young to be sharing what they look like or their age, or any other personal information for that matter. I've shared my voice on this site, but I'd never actually share my face or let others know too much about myself. Edwin Shade (talk) 02:19, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

I'm not that much of a case. I try to keep others from figuring out my identity, but I'm not paranoid about information. I go by the same alias here as I do everywhere else: Twitter, Twitch, YouTube, etc. I've showed my face, given my date of birth, and stated that I live in the United States, but I don't want people figuring out EXACTLY who I am. ArtismScrub (talk) 02:38, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that kind of makes sense. I just don't mind people knowing who I look like. I've been on the internet quite a few times before, so might as well in my case. Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 02:45, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

Why is it kept???

10^100? It's impossible, even if we make up numbers and name it every gibberish possible, at a rate of 10^50 every second. 80.98.179.160 16:59, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a figure of speech. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:38, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

But this "figure of speech" is impossible. 80.98.179.160 08:58, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

That's often the point of figures of speech. LittlePeng9 (talk) 09:55, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

10K pages

update googolnews Nishada 02:56, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

Actually, throughout the last year and this year, the page count of this wiki has been fluctuating around 10K pages, sometimes above, sometimes below. I don't think we should add a news entry here; the one on January 4, 2017 is enough. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 07:37, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

Article Count Progress

We have reached 100% of our goal of 10,100 articles! --84.61.221.211 05:21, April 5, 2018 (UTC)

An Odd Discovery

Why do the Recent Wiki Activity sections on certain pages disagree with each other? PlantStar/Alpineer 06:31, April 6, 2018 (UTC)

Number of articles

The present number of articles in Googology Wiki is equal to the number of divisors of a googol, namely 10,201. --84.61.221.211 10:01, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

This was only true for 16 minutes. (09:56 ~ 10:12 in UTC) -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 13:08, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Again, we have 10,201 articles. --84.61.221.211 09:07, May 9, 2018 (UTC)

If you count the redirects with {{delete}} on them as articles, as the current Wikia implementation does. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:48, May 9, 2018 (UTC)

Googology Wiki Proposed Constitution

We need a bit more organization when it comes to getting stuff done. Check this out (click "this" in case you didn't notice) nnn6nnn likes this. (talk) 22:01, May 12, 2018 (UTC)

Can't edit redirect

I don't know how to remove a category from a redirect. --92.216.162.15 07:41, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Every time I attempt to remove Category:Even numbers from 581, I will be redirected to Numbers in recreational mathematics. Can somebody fix this? --92.216.162.15 08:33, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

When you go to the 581 page, you get automatically redirected to Numbers in recreational mathematics, and the top of the page says "Redirected from 581 ". You need to click on the link and you will go to the article 581 but not get redirected. Then you can edit the page, including changing categories. Rpakr (talk) 11:40, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Every time I attempt to publish my edit, I will be automatically redirected. Can somebody fix this? --92.216.162.15 11:52, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

I did the edit for you. That's kinda odd. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:57, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Cloudy, this IP is Edwin's. Trust me on this one. These are the IP's he have been using before he started trolling (both the one starting with 92 and the one starting with 81). I've found this out by doing a time index analysis of the posts by this IP range and the trolling posts made from a different account. And if you wait a week or two, I will have more evidence for you.

(or at least, the famous 92.x.x.x address we're both familiar with is Edwin's actual IP. This new one - 92.216.162.15 - ends differently, so I suppose there's a slim chance that it's someone else from the same geographical area. But I wouldn't bet on it, if I were you)PsiCubed2 (talk) 17:01, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Cloudy, I'm awaiting your reply to my email. PsiCubed2 (talk) 17:05, October 8, 2018 (UTC)

Lock main page

Ohh Admin please can you lock this page? It's just main page, many people opening the wiki (not registered too) and anyone can edit the main important page. there are so many wandals people so please lock this page only for Admins. Thanks

Cry$tal (talk) 19:15, October 29, 2018 (UTC)

Please add polish wiki

It's actually added but it's unofficial and i asking for make my wiki officially Polish Wiki "Googologia Wiki" (googologia means googology) Owner and founder of this wikipedia is 'G00gelman' so please write to him if want.

There are link to wiki: http://pl.googologia.wikia.com/wiki/Googologia_Wiki

I starting today and when creator will accept my request we will make more pages etc. I typing the request here, because I couldn't write to creator of this wiki, Vel! Please answer me. Thanks for reading this :)

Cry$tal (talk) 16:54, October 30, 2018 (UTC)

About changing the domain to FANDOM

Apparently, since Wikia rebranded to Fandom, Fandom started the process of migrating wikia.com domains to fandom.com as stated here. Can somebody change the domain ASAP? ARsygo (talk) 23:31, January 18, 2019 (UTC)

Why the rush? It will be done eventually. Prepared to be surprised when it happens. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:31, January 19, 2019 (UTC)

What is X in Bower's exploding array function?

Why is X put there and what is X's value?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaplikua (talk • contribs)

Please do not forget to put your signature when you post a comment to a talk page.
Please ask it more a relevant talk page such as that of BEAF.
X is not a natural number, but a structure. Therefore it does not has a value.

p-adic 00:14, May 30, 2020 (UTC)

Should we add the protection template to the page?

A user recently requested protection of the main page because of vandalism. I reverted the edit because I think the protection template would cause the main page to look bad. Several users reinstated the template because they think it is necessary to alert administrators to the page. I think it is better to request protection on the talk page instead because it does not add the protection template to the main page. {{SUBST:User|WikiOfEverything}} 23:14, October 3, 2020 (UTC)

At least, please do not dishonestly remove an important tag/template without understanding the reason why it has been put. Removing allerts and deletion tags is also bad in the same reason, too. You said that C7X is vandalising, but who you did worse is you. Even if you believe that you are doing it for "good" purpose, please do not forget that others are also doing what they think better after several discussions. Please do not ignore arguments by changing everything without adding no reason. If you know nothing, then ask a question at talk pages.

p-adic 23:21, October 3, 2020 (UTC)

Regiment pages

On the Discord server, I asked about moving most of the thousands of Saibianism pages to regiment pages. A proposal was mentioned there that some important pages such as Tetrathoth and Monster-Giant should be kept, but less major pages such as Terinntotholnonice should be moved; are there objections to this? C7X (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The situation is a little complicated. Let me summarise:

Many users proposed the regiment project in early days, but they did not fuly discuss it, (Therefore the regiment project was not done at the time.)
Later, Ikosarakt, one of our admins, started to remove many articles, because nobody seriously started to discuss the project.
However, I pointed out that a deletion without discussion was not sound. It is related to the term of use in FANDOM.
1. When we edit/create articles, we own copyrights. (At the time, most users did not know the fact.) Therefore if we want to delete articles/contents which are not violating the policy, the term of use, or any other laws, we should ask copyrightholders the permission.
2. Of course, such a process does not help us to housekeep the community. Instead, we have alternative smarter choices. For example, wikipedia recommends users to precisely clarify the credit of the original article. (Either the summary box or the talk page is useful for this purpose.)
  1. When we delete copyrighted contents, we can move the whole contents to an undeleated talk page and clarify the credits of the contributors.
  2. When we move copyrighted contents, we can clarify the credits of the contributors.
  3. FANDOM clarifies that the standard way to respect the copyright in wikis is to show the credit, which can be done at the summary box or the talk page. Therefore it does not conflict the term of use.
  4. That is why I always write the moving history at the summary box when I move contents.
3. However, this process is also redundant when we drastically change the wiki. In that case, we can discuss inside this community (not in other SNSs or discord), as FANDOM openly accepts communities to decide the way to maintain the wiki as long as they respect opinions by members. Therefore we had discussion on the regiment project after reverting Ikosarakt's deletions.
  1. We should not decide such an important topic in discord, as there are members outside discord, and it is hard for future members to check the history of the discussion. Therefore please hold a discussion at this community next time.
  2. For example, Japanese Googology Wiki strictly recommends us to discuss such a thing inside the wiki, even though most members are usually using SNSs and discord. Therefore we actually hold discussions inside the wiki. It is quite sound.
4. Then we agreed with the regiment project. Therefore it does not violate the policy or the term of use.
5. However, the situation has been changed. ARsygo, who is one of the most active users, and who is working very well to maintain this wiki, partially disagrees with the regiment project, because of the unreadability of too heavy regiments, Therefore I have not reverted ARsygo's undoing the regiment project, respecting the reasoning. (I clarify that I agree with the regiment project, but now this is just a personal preference.)

As a conclusion, it does not directly violate the policy, but I suggest to have a discussion again. For example, it is better to find a way to solve the issue that regiments cannot be appropriately displayed when they grow heavier.

p-adic 01:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Poll Changer accounts

Some accounts, such as User:Poll Changer 68, User:Poll Changer 75, User:Poll Changer 79, and User:Poll Changer 83 have been used for vandalism on this wiki. However, there are hundreds of other "User:Poll Changer #" accounts, most of them with 0 edits. Should I pre-emptively ban them in case they're sleeper accounts? C7X (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Although I do not know activities of those accounts (in other wikis), we should not allow a single user to create multiple accounts without any specific reasons. (If we officially allow it, blocking is meaningless.) Therefore if you think that it is suspected, then it is reasonable to block them. For example, you can allow them to have the right to edit their talk page, in order to explain the reason to create multiple accounts.

p-adic 08:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that at least some of the higher-numbered ones are sleeper accounts (at least I don't understand why they would exist otherwise). I might leave accounts such as "Poll Changer" unblocked in case they're a legitimate new user C7X (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As it turns out, they were almost certainly sockpuppets

C7X (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Logo design

I like the current design, but I also have written in my common.css a light mode version that looks like this:

Under what conditions is the logo allowed to be modified? Also if people disagree, I can leave it the way it is as well C7X (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Community members are allowed to have discussion to decide anything about this wiki. So if you propose the change of the logo and nobody disagrees, then you can change it. (In addition, I have no preference on the logo.)

p-adic 06:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

OK (I'll wait for more responses) C7X (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Better to look. I like yours. koteitan (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while and nobody's disagreed either, so I'll change it (I can also change it back later) C7X (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I hope that you will add "January 12, 2021: Googology Wiki renewed the logo!" or something like that to GoogolNews, because the main page is currently protected.

p-adic 01:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.

p-adic 01:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose to write a script that switches the logo to V&D's logo during April 1st C7X (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal about user subpages

Is there a way to give people protection rights for their own subpages? For example, User:A can protect the page User:A/My_subpage if they choose, however User A couldn't protect User:B/Someone_else's_subpage. C7X (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no automatic way, as far as I know. What we can do is to ask members not to edit others' personal pages without justification, or to make such a rule.

p-adic 23:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Theme acting up

Today I see the text "Googology Wiki" in the header and some buttons (like sometimes the Edit and Add Category buttons) in a dark shade of blue, also making it hard to read. IDK if this is change occurs for everyone or if it's related to UCP, but I can't find the theme element that reverses this C7X (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It happens to me too. (I use a Chromebook)

I will go on my main PC on Firefox and Chrome to see if it is a UCP thing. LuckyLuxius (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I figured out what it was. It's because the text "Googology Wiki" is a hyperlink, if you've already visited the main page it turns purple. Removing it from your history goes back to white, so white must be assigned to its a:link pseudoclass. C7X (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to remove off-topic sections

This is the talk page for the main page, and hence personal messages like greetings are not suitable. I propose to remove them. They should be just given in blog posts or personal talk pages.

p-adic 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I removed two irrelevant sections.

p-adic 23:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

OK C7X (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki climate

According to some users, the mainspace has become unwelcoming over the past year or so, which is scaring off new users and sometimes even leading old users to quit. One reason given for this is a concept of overexcessive warning of beginners and denouncing of old work. Although it's good to warn beginners that, for example, some old explanations of OCFs on this wiki are incorrect, the heavy emphasis of negative claims like most googologists believed that ("wrong" and "ill-defined" are allowed because they're objective fact) is intimidating and can seem hostile to new users. I am by no means against bringing this wiki to a higher standard of rigor than it was years ago, but in a less domineering/intimidating way. Does anyone have opinions on this idea? (If so, I may do something about this in the future) C7X (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Where can we see the opinions by the users? At least, we need to precisely argue about the issue, and hence it is not the best to hide the precise opinions. If you are talking about opinions outside this wiki, e.g. discord, then they should honestly write their own opinions instead of asking you to share their opinions. Otherwise, it is disjonest because we need to spend our own time instead of them. They should be responsible for their own opinions, and spend their own time instead of requiring us to do so.

Also, I have an opinion. The fact that so many users believed and spread the wrong information is truth. If you required me to show evidences here, then I would do so. But I am certain that we do not need to do so, because you and many other users know the failures, and we do not have to remind people of their names. Then what should we do? We need to sincerely be responsible for the past dishonest error based on the inappropriate attitude to explain what they did not know. We should literally apologise our failures, which caused serious pollution to the world, and hence should not "hide" what we did.

The reason why I think that we should be so strict on our spreading wrong information is because we sometimes regard those irresponsible failures as tiny episodes. (You can see many blog posts written even in this year which include so many wrong "facts" based on statements on what the authors do not know about.) We should be strict on failures based on wrong belief on what they do not know about, because it is far from average attitudes toward study.

p-adic 02:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)