10,647 Pages

## So, what have you done to Wikipedia?!

[1]I want more clouds! 06:05, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

More nice(?) things: [2], [3] (Good job pal, the page is now salted.) --I want more clouds! 04:54, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

It's a hoax?! I've never been so insulted in all my life! FB100Ztalkcontribs 05:57, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that if an article is deleted as a hoax, it doesn't imply that the subject is also a hoax. -- I want more clouds! 14:45, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

What's the deal with mmmlpo being the "largest number that never changes"? TREE(3) never changes. Rayo's number never changes. Goucher's number never changes. FB100Ztalkcontribs 05:59, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Is meameamealokkapoowa oompa still larger than meameamealokkapoowa&meameamealokkapoowa? $Jiawhein$$$a$$$$l$$$$t$$ 12:48, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yep, much, much, MUCH larger. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:52, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

## Power of BEAN

According to my reasoning, meameamealokkapoowa lies well beyond Bachmann-Howard ordinal range (See my blog entry). Bird's comparisons were wrong from taking that if A has level $$\alpha$$, then A && n will have level $$\theta(\Omega^\Omega)^{\alpha}$$, and so his $$[1 \backslash 2 [1 \neg 1 \neg 2] 2]$$ separator can be comparable to Bowers' double slash (//). Actually, in sub-L space I noted one important thing: if $$\{X,X \#\}$$ has level $$\alpha_0$$, then $$\{X,2X \#\}$$ will have level $$\alpha_1$$. As {X,X / 2} structure is comparable to $$[1 [1 \neg 1 \neg 2] 2]$$, {X,2X / 2} must be at level $$[1 [1 \neg 1 \neg 2] 3$$, and $$[1 \backslash 2 [1 \neg 1 \neg 2] 2]$$ structurally is just {X,X / 2}^^X. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 08:46, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

The power of BEAN is far above BAN and HAN, now! hyp$hyp?cos&cos (talk) 12:09, November 20, 2013 (UTC) By what reason? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 13:36, November 20, 2013 (UTC) The &, the &&, and such things all work to "map SGH into FGH" - that means the ordinal of p(n) in SGH is mapped into the ordinal of p(X)&n in FGH. If you still think that a legion is LVO, please point out the difference among {3,3,3,3}&3, {3,3+1(1)2}&3 and 3+1&3&3. (these notations are hard to solve, for & has property "Holdleft", so we have to use X's for structure, and use $$X_{k+1}$$ for structure of $$X_k$$'s. Then {3,3,3,3}&3 becomes {X,X,X,X}&3={X,4(1)2}&3, {3,3+1(1)2}&3 becomes {X,X+1(1)2}&3, and 3+1&3&3 becomes $$X_2+1\&X\&3=\{X,X,...,X(1)X\}\&3=\{X,X(1)X+1\}\&3$$. That's clear.) hyp$hyp?cos&cos (talk) 01:45, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
Are these notations above Dollar function, now? LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:58, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
No! I think the limit of BEAF is $$\psi(\Psi(\omega,0))$$ or lower. ( or a bit higher, if $$C(\Omega_\omega) = \psi(\Psi(\omega,0))$$ ) Wythagoras (talk) 18:26, November 21, 2013 (UTC)
But have you made comparisons between Catching hierarchy II and normal notations? We don't know what's $$C(\Omega_\omega)$$ in normal notation exactly, nuff said about the limit of BEAN! hyp\$hyp?cos&cos (talk) 01:54, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

More recently, I've found that this number may be far greater than the $$f_{\psi(\psi_I(0))}$$ level! FB100Ztalkcontribs 23:13, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

"This number is believed to be beaten by Loader's Number." Believed to be beaten? Even in the most "optimistic" analyses, I haven't seen BEAF reach the strength of Loader's function. Maybe called Googology Noob (talk) 13:26, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that the definition of the number is not clear, so people are leery of making definitive statements about it. Deedlit11 (talk) 13:32, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that it's completely not clear and ill defined, but even in Hyp Cos' analysis I don't think it reaches Loader's ordinal. That said, I guess it's better if it's not changed. Don't want to start another BEAF debate. Maybe called Googology Noob (talk) 14:23, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

## Question

What Saibianisms and Tiaokhiaoisms can this number be compared to? KamafaDelgato021469 (talk) 00:45, June 22, 2018 (UTC)

This number is ill-defined, so it cannot be compared to other googologisms (which of course includes all Saibianisms and Tiaokhiaoisms.) Rpakr (talk) 11:24, June 23, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.