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! FB100Z • talk • contribs 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. FB100Z • talk • contribs 05:59, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
Is meameamealokkapoowa oompa still larger than meameamealokkapoowa&meameamealokkapoowa? \(a\)\(l\)\(t\) 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! FB100Z • talk • contribs 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)