STOP

I wrote that Nirvana Supermind removed "Alternative definition", and added the four sources, which actually shows that he or she really removed it. However, Nirvana Supermind is continuing to state that it is fake.

How could we doubt the sources? Difference pages cannot be manipulated, although Nirvana Supermind might seriously believe that he or she can.

p-adic 02:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

TO Nirvana Supermind

I just wrote facts with sources. Even though you insist "I inteded to add the removed sections again", it is irrelevant to the fact that you removed the most part of the article. It is obviously vandalism. If you misunderstand that a portion of an article were incorrect, you do not have to remove the most part of the article. Just be honest. Stop cheating. Do not remove correct and sourced information.

p-adic 03:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The most part of the article is subjective information that claims I am cheating, and sources that don't prove it.

And my information has been sourced too.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


> The most part of the article is subjective information that claims I am cheating, and sources that don't prove it.

As I said, clarify the sentence which you are referring to. It is meaningless to insist that something is a fake, unless you specify it.

> And my information has been sourced too.

Which statement? Several statements such as the name might be sourced, and hence I kept them. I am talking about your fake unsourced information.


Also, when two users have distinct reasonable preference for correct description, we should choose the first one. Otherwise, we just have edit war. Do you understand? What you are doing (moving, renaming, and condensing sections) is just ignoring others.

Of course, this is the case only when you try reasonable edits. Unconstructive edits like removing correct and sourced information is awful. At least, you should ask the validity at the talk page before you do so. You should not ignore the effort by others.

Remeber what you did. You insisted the well-definedness again and again even when errors on your notations are pointed out, and removed the descritption. Could you ask questions at the talk page when you could not understand points instead of dishonestly manipulating articles? How many times should you tell this? Will you repeat the same thing, i.e. you create an ill-defined notation, others point out errors, and you remove the descriptions before you understand the issues? Are you happy then?

p-adic 03:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


@Nirvana Supermind

How many time should I tell you the same thing? Clarify the precise sentence which you insist that is wrong. Stop vandalism. As I clarified, the existence of something that you feel wrong cannot be a reason for the removal of the most part of the article.

p-adic 07:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Something about the "nested 0 times" problem.

What if instead of having this ramble about how I<0,1> is ill-defined, how about we say it is I<> because it is nested 0 times, which means there are no nests because it is a null value. This could apply to all functions, like if you had f(x,y) = f(x-1, . . . f(x-1,y) . . . ) nested y times, and we had f(2,0) then it would just be 0 because there is nothing there. does it make sense or am I just making things worse like everything else I did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by XiTetrateiX (talkcontribs)

There are problems:
  1. "Nested a times" is ambiguous, because there are several ways too nest expressions.
  2. The creator does not even say that the expression is nested a times, but just says "for a times".
  3. In the most systems of fundamental sequence, the expression a[0] for some expression a is frequently defined as an expression "nested 0 times", but is not given as an application of a function string to an empty string.
  4. Remember FGH. We define f_{a+1}(x) so that the resulting expression is "nested x times", but f_{a+1}(0) = 0 is not f_a(), which is ill-defined.
  5. It is partially unreasonable to define the expression "for 0 times" as I<>, because the expression "for a times" includes a I's when a > 0 according to the creator's example. If we continuously guess, it should include 0 I's. Then the resulting expression should be the empty string, "a", "a,b-1", or something like that. In any rate, it is quite ambiguous.
Therefore an average googologist usually defines an expansion in terms of a precise term rewriting instead of using intuition-based exrpession like "nested a times" or ambiguous ellipses.
p-adic 22:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with XiTetrateiX. Additionally, I banned 0s by changing the domain and I changed the definition to "with 'a' nestings" to make it clearer what is happening. And you can't say THAT description is ambigous, because this notation (which is known to be well-defined), uses the same description.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 03:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

> (which is known to be well-defined)
Dear... A notation "known by you to be well-defined" is not necessarily well-defined, as you have created so many ill-defined works which are "known by you to be well-defined". How could you justify that "nested 0 times" has the unique meaning, i.e. it should mean I<>? In your sense, the notation "known by you to be well-defined" satisfies H<0,m> = H<>? Wow! Then it is actually ill-defined in your context! How inconsistent you are.
p-adic 05:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Response to pbot's rant

< As I said, clarify the sentence which you are referring to. It is meaningless to insist that something is a fake, unless you specify it.

Here is just one of many examples:

Second definition

Unfortunately, this section is a target of the creator's removal.

<ref> name="removement 6" />
<ref> name="removement 7" />
<ref> name="removement 8" />
<ref> name="removement 9" />
<ref> name="removement 10" />
<ref> name="removement 11" />
<ref> name="removement 12" />

To be more precise, the creator is trying to rename this section, and simultaneously removing several contents of this section.

After the ill-definedness was pointed out, the creator first could not understand the issue, as he or she dishonestly removed the description and the alternative definition above twice, by insisting that the description was wrong.

<ref> name="removement 1" />
<ref> name="removement 2" />

Later, the creator understood the ill-definedness. Although the creator somewhy repeated to remove the alternative definition

<ref> name="removement 3" />
<ref> name="removement 4" />
<ref> name="removement 5" />

or rename the section for the alternative definition

<ref> name="removement 6" />
<ref> name="removement 7" />
<ref> name="removement 8" />
<ref> name="removement 9" />
<ref> name="removement 10" />
<ref> name="removement 11" />
<ref> name="removement 12" />

he or she added a second definition. The main change from the original definition is that the domain is restricted to the subset of arrays of length at most 2 whose entries are positive integers instead of non-negative integers.

Let's analyze this piece of the article one by one:

  1. You first say "Unfortunately, this section is a target of the creator's removal. To be more precise, the creator is trying to rename this section, and simultaneously removing several contents of this section. ". The sources for it show me removing that section. But, you glossed over the revision right after those where I added a section called "Current version". This section refers to the same version and has the same content as your section, minus all of the other subjective informations. So this section isn't a target of my removement, I just revamped it as the "Current version" section.
  2. The next part is "Later, the creator understood the ill-definedness. Although the creator somewhy repeated to remove the alternative definition". The sources immediately after that show me removing the alternate definition section. But, you once again glossed over the revision right after those where I added a section called "Pbot's version". This section refers to the same version and has the same content as your section, minus all of the other subjective informations. So this section isn't a target of my removement, I just revamped it as the "Pbot's version" section.
  3. Finally, you say "he or she added a second definition. The main change from the original definition is that the domain is restricted to the subset of arrays of length at most 2 whose entries are positive integers instead of non-negative integers.". There is nothing wrong with that part.

And just a reminder, even then, the wiki policy does NOT state that those informations can't be removed.

< Which statement? Several statements such as the name might be sourced, and hence I kept them. I am talking about your fake unsourced information.

Clarify the sentence(s) which you are referring to. It is meaningless to insist that something is a fake, unless you specify it.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


Response to Nirvana Supermind

> But, you glossed over the revision right after those where I added a section called "Current version". This section refers to the same version and has the same content as your section, minus all of the other subjective informations. So this section isn't a target of my removement, I just revamped it as the "Current version" section.

As I said, you should not persist your preference. The solution for the case when two users have distinct reasonable preferences, we should follow the first one. Although I told you so, you persisted your preference. It is not different from your personal removement. Also, there is no fake, as I clarified that you renamed the section.

So this is just your cheating.

> But, you once again glossed over the revision right after those where I added a section called "Pbot's version". This section refers to the same version and has the same content as your section, minus all of the other subjective informations. So this section isn't a target of my removement, I just revamped it as the "Pbot's version" section.

Huh? Why do you continue to write a fake, even though it can be easily checked. Say, where is that section in the sources, which I listed? For example, the following page is the version I picked as the source of your removement.

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Infra_Notation?oldid=307183

The corresponding difference page is the following:

https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Infra_Notation?type=revision&diff=307183&oldid=307182

So this is just your cheating.

> And just a reminder, even then, the wiki policy does NOT state that those informations can't be removed.

And I said that the wiki policy does NOT state that those informations can't be kept. Therefore I told you to discuss here, while you frequently ignored the proposal. At any rate, we should not allow your vandalism, which causes the destruction of an article by the unconstructive removement.

So this is just your cheating.

> Clarify the sentence(s) which you are referring to. It is meaningless to insist that something is a fake, unless you specify it.

All sentences which are explained in the article as your fakes. You want to choose several of them, right? Then I choose the following:

  1. Your explanation is incorrect. The empty string is valid expression, it is stated that the array can be I<>. And that expression is also not ill-defined, since I had the foresight to put "I<> = 0"
    1. It is a fake, as there is no reasonable explanation why the result is I<>.
  2. Many of your statement on the well-definedness.
    1. Could you stop to write most likely even when you have no idea about how to prove it?
  3. Your description is not only longer and still contains some outdated information (like fixing issues in the Alternate defintion that I already fixed), but it includes fake informations about how the Original version and Alternate defintion sections are a target of my removement, even though I added their equivalents when I had the time.
    1. As I clarified, the sourced does not include the Alternative definition. Also, I have clarified that you renamed the section in the latter versions. However, you are stating that it is a fake. How can it be a fake?

p-adic 05:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


But why this page?

Why create a vandalism-prone page here, that is about an ill-defined notation? Why does this page even exist in the first place? It should be deleted.Zongshu Wu 06:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The page is created by the vandalist, but the article itself is valid, as it has the first source and is not created by a blocked user. The point is that the user manipulates the descriptions, and is persisting to remove all descriptions which he or she does not like. It is not the first time. Other articles
created by the same user are also targets of the vandalism. Mainly, the user is trying to remove descriptions explaining how they are/were ill-defined and how the creator's statements are wrong. Especially, the user hates mathematical proofs which shows the incorrectness of the creator's statements, and alternative definitions which solve known issues. What the user wants to write is just a fake like "it is most likely well-defined" instead of actual mathematical facts. We should not allow such manipulation, and hence I hope admins will warn the user.
p-adic 07:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The user "P進大好きbot" is wrong, and is trying to persuade you. At first, this notation was indeed ill-defined: I<0,1> would have an ambigous expansion. But, I later updated the definition to ban those types of expression, thus making the notation well-defined. However, P進大好きbot insists that the new notation is also ill-defined, even though there are countless other well-defined notations with the exact same rules as mine. They have also added fake informations, such as "The section 'blah' is a target of the creator's removement" even though I keep most of the sections (I just renamed them). You must contact an admin privately to warn the user. They vandalizing function pages acrros this wiki on both my notation and others. 01:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

> At first, this notation was indeed ill-defined: I<0,1> would have an ambigous expansion.

Wow. You finally admit it. Why couldn't you accept it even though I repeated to explain why it is ambiguous? Why did you removed the description of the ill-definedness, before you update the definition as if it had no ambiguity?

> However, P進大好きbot insists that the new notation is also ill-defined, even though there are countless other well-defined notations with the exact same rules as mine.

Could you tell me the precise url and the precise sentence where I insisted so? (Note: if you refer to my comment before you updated the definition, it is just your cheating.) I just commented that it was ambiguous, and I myself clarified the candidate of the interpretation before you updated the definition.

> They have also added fake informations, such as "The section 'blah' is a target of the creator's removement" even though I keep most of the sections (I just renamed them).

Fake:

  1. There were actually several versions in which you renamed and moved sections. For those, I clarified that the removal means that you renamed them. And I told you so many time that when there are two users with distinct preference, we should hold a discussion or follow the first version, while you ignored.
  2. There were actually several versions in which you removed sections. I showed you the exact url above ("Response to Nirvana Supermind" section in this talk page), but you still igore it.

Why do you continue to state fakes even though it is quite easy to check? Stop cheating.

p-adic 02:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@12AbBa

In this way, the vandalist is always insisting fakes without showing sources. Perhaps the vandalist will ignore my request to tell me the precise url and the precise sentence, or just show a url written before he or she updated the definition. (We have precise retrieval dates, and hence such a fake can be easily found.)

Of course, if you want a source for whatever I explained, I honestly give you here. (Maybe you have already known, though.) Please feel free to ask me a source for any specific statement.

p-adic 02:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

> Wow. You finally admit it. Why couldn't you accept it even though I repeated to explain why it is ambiguous? Why did you removed the description of the ill-definedness, before you update the definition as if it had no ambiguity?

Have you ever heard of a little thing called "work in progress"?

> Fake:

  1. There were actually several versions in which you renamed and moved sections. For those, I clarified that the removal means that you renamed them. And I told you so many time that when there are two users with distinct preference, we should hold a discussion or follow the first version, while you ignored.
  2. There were actually several versions in which you removed sections. I showed you the exact url above ("Response to Nirvana Supermind" section in this talk page), but you still igore it.

Why do you continue to state fakes even though it is quite easy to check? Stop cheating.

Yes, but you still kept "This page is target of the removal", which means you think that renaming is the same as removing it, which is fake.

> However, P進大好きbot insists that the new notation is also ill-defined, even though there are countless other well-defined notations with the exact same rules as mine.

Here's your precise example. You put "Incomplete" category on it, which is for ill-defined notations. The description is "This category contains googological notions which are currently ill-defined due to the fact that their definitions include serious errors or serious ambiguities."

And also, you glossed over the link I gave you. It was made by Username5243, who is known for making fast-growing welldefined notations. I literally stole the definition of Super Notation to ensure this notation was well-defined and isn't prone to your cheating. Of course, the next extension of it would diverge from Super Notation.

> There were actually several versions in which you renamed and moved sections. For those, I clarified that the removal means that you renamed them. And I told you so many time that when there are two users with distinct preference, we should hold a discussion or follow the first version, while you ignored.

You said that I made a condensed section, but you also still said that your section a target of removal, which is fake.

> There were actually several versions in which you removed sections. I showed you the exact url above ("Response to Nirvana Supermind" section in this talk page), but you still igore it. Why do you continue to state fakes even though it is quite easy to check? Stop cheating.

I was just reverting it and not editing because I didn't have time. After that, I was going to rename and move the sections as you stated on previous line.

> Why do you continue to state fakes even though it is quite easy to check? Stop cheating.

You can put as many sources as you want. Cheating is a subjective information, you can't prove it using objective sources.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvana Supermind (talkcontribs)

> Have you ever heard of a little thing called "work in progress"?

It is completely irrelevant. I pointed out the ill-definedness of I<0,1>, you denied it, and you removed the description. That is all.

> Yes, but you still kept "This page is target of the removal", which means you think that renaming is the same as removing it, which is fake.

Give us an alternative description instead of removing most parts including what you hate. Should I simply replace "removal" by "renaming"? I asked you to have a discussion, but you usually igonored it and just drastically removed most parts.

> Here's your precise example. You put "Incomplete" category on it, which is for ill-defined notations.

Fake. The first date I added the article to the category is 09/12/2020. Of course, I reverted your destruction, and then the article will be readded to the category. It does not mean that I am insisting the ill-definedness. I am just reverting your vandalism. When we revert vandalism, we do not have to check all valid changes.

> And also, you glossed over the link I gave you. It was made by Username5243, who is known for making fast-growing welldefined notations.

Dear... Actually, Username has perhaps created several well-defined notations, but it is quite well-known that many of Username's notation are ill-defined.

As I said, a notation "known by you to be well-defined" is not necessarily well-deifned. For example, you always insist that you have created "most likely well-defined" notations, while they are originally ill-defined. Remember I<0,1>. You insisted that I was wrong and it was well-defined.

> You said that I made a condensed section, but you also still said that your section a target of removal, which is fake.

It is not a fake, as I clarify the precise meaning. I and you have two distinct preference, and hence the renaming based on persisting your own preference is same as the removal. I asked you to stop removing before discussion, but you ignored.

> I was just reverting it and not editing because I didn't have time. After that, I was going to rename and move the sections as you stated on previous line.

You was going to rename and move it, but you did not. It does not mean that you renamed and moved it. Therefore it is your fake. My description that you actually removed is completely correct, while you state that it is a fake.

> You can put as many sources as you want. Cheating is a subjective information, you can't prove it using objective sources.

And you cannot put sources, as yo have no source.

p-adic 03:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.