NOBODY CARES ABOUT GIGOOMBAVERSE FB100Z • talk • contribs 04:28, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

- So, you care about the Croutonillion? $ Jiawhein $
^{\(a\)\(l\)\(t\)}06:05, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

Is BB(n) supposed to be here? $ Jiawhein $^{\(a\)\(l\)\(t\)} 06:05, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

- Yes, it belongs here. But there's no named numbers defined using the BB(n) function itself yet. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 06:18, May 28, 2013 (UTC)

- I don't think it would be unreasonable to include Σ(1000) as it's often used as a benchmark for an incredibly large number. Scott Aaronson uses it as an example in his essay. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:15, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- I'm curious how large Σ(1000) can be. Maybe it's a good chance that Chris Bird will reach this number with his array notation after some time. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 15:44, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a bit no sense to say "uncomputable numbers". In fact, numbers like \(\Xi(10^6)\) and Rayo's one themselves are computable, but you just can't find a way for every number to make an output. Well, if you think like this: "uncomputable numbers are numbers that outputed from an uncomputable function", then 1,2,3,4,6,13,17 and 51 are uncomputable numbers that you mean. hyp$hyp?cos&cos (talk) 12:02, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

- We know this, but we our definition of uncomputable (which in fact is improper term) number is a number which can't be bounded from above by known computable functions in a compact way. LittlePeng9 (talk) 15:15, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

- How about "numbers which nobody knows how to represent it in a computable way"? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:17, December 1, 2013 (UTC) ninja'd

- I think my definition would be better, as, for example, we don't know how to express n(3) (I know, it's computable function, but who cares) using common notations, but Friedman bounded it using A(A(5)) I believe. LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:52, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

- We don't know a upper-bound for Loader's number and even TREE(3), either. hyp$hyp?cos&cos (talk) 11:06, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

- We know bounds using computable functions. My n(3) analogy was only for a purpose of showing why "can be bounded by" is better than "can be expressed by". LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:48, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we can use the Kolmogorov complexity in a computable formal system or something as a measuring stick for computability. FB100Z • talk • contribs 21:17, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

- It would be good idea, expect that many numbers which are relatively small (say, smaller than googolplex), will have complexity greater than googol. I'd consider such number computable size, but their complexity is disproportionally large. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:25, December 2, 2013 (UTC)

## Oblivion and Utter Oblivion

Should they be put here? If so, where? Hit (talk) 17:21, October 16, 2016 (UTC)

Yes,I believe so!Infact I am going to put them here now.Boboris02 (talk) 18:41, October 16, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Oblivion nor Utter Oblivion follow the "Rules" as seen here. They are especially problematic as it means that defining larger numbers becomes harder - especially numbers to be defined in "proper" mathematical notation. I will delete the terms from the list. Instead of reverting that edit, please consult one of the admin [or me], so that it can be discussed. Thanks. Sorry for acting like some sort of expert. Mush9 (talk) 19:08, October 16, 2016 (UTC)

We should still put them somewhere, I think, considering that Bowers himself defined them. Maybe in a separate category called "Special and indeterminate numbers"? Hit (talk) 21:53, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

they exist already in a category called "Numbers by jonathan bowers" and it doesnt need to be restricted to well-defined numbers Chronolegends (talk) 23:02, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

- How about we will create new category, Indescribable Numbers? AarexWikia04 - 23:11, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

That would be pretty cool!Altho I think it just falls into the uncomputable category.Boboris02 (talk) 16:06, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

## Well-defined?

The description "They are currently the largest well-defined named numbers in professional mathematics." is not appropriate because no one other than the creators would verify their well-definedness. Or are there any sources to explain their well-definedness? At leatst, BIG FOOT, Little Bigeddon, and Sasquatch / Big Bigeddon lack precise descriptions in their original definitions, and possess obvious problems in their formulation. Therefore it is impossible for other googologists than the creators to verify the well-definedness. Since they are using formal logic. Therefore they should be dealt with in a similar way to Oblivion.

p-adic 23:10, November 30, 2018 (UTC)