Should we retain approximations on BEAF numbers larger than this level using:

"Below are approximations of [BEAF number] using some unspecified method of resolution of arrays." Triakula (talk) 05:37, January 14, 2020 (UTC)

I think that it is unnecessary for googology, but there seem to be several googologists who really like approximations using some unspecified method. (Not only BEAF, but also unspecified OCFs.) If we keep such meaningless or even misleading analyses, then it might be better to clarify that it is ill-defined in each article including such analyses. Also, we have two categories for ill-defined works. (Category:Unformalised and Category:Incomplete) In this case, since there is no single agreed-upon definition given by the creator (but are multiple alternative ones given by others), it might be better to put it into "Unformalised" category.
Since this issue on the meaningless analysis is related to many other numbers, it might be better to argue at a talk page for a wider topic such as policy or List of googolisms. Also, we can use Forum.
p-adic 06:30, January 14, 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I think there must be proofs that under some definition BEAF can be approximated to other notations at certain ordinal. It requires transfinite induction. Triakula (talk) 08:19, January 14, 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. But I note that there are not so many googogoligists who can write a formal proof which requires transfinite induction. Then I guess that many of the estimations on BEAF numbers are given by average googologists, and hence might not be justified by transfinite induction. (For the trivial case, if estimations themselves are incorrect, then there are no method to justify them with proofs.) Although I do not know well about estimations of numbers defined by BEAF, there are many "expectations" of numbers defined by other systems without theoretic backgrounds. In my opinion, analyses in this wiki without any sources are not so reliable. Please see an issue on "the traditional analysis" in this wiki.
p-adic 08:35, January 14, 2020 (UTC)

First appearance of Kungulus on the internet

The Kungulus first appeared on Bowers' site when it was moved to in 2006, but I found an earlier reference in the forum (the same site where the "word of god" is from). This is not relevant to the wiki because although it is (possibly?) a valid "first source", so is the much more well-known site. But I just wanted to point it out for those of you who like obscure trivia. A Hippopotatomus (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

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