Googology Wiki
Googology Wiki

Archive 2016-2020

First talk ever

Hi Denis Maksudov. I see that you like ordinals so much! Also, I have my array notation at Link the fast-growing hierarchy with my array notation using this site. Thank you!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seangem1242 (talkcontribs)

  1. Your first extension actually has limit w, since you write that a|c|b corresponds to a↑^(c)b, using Knuth’s arrows.
  2. You should give explicit definition for rest extensions, write set of rules for each of them, otherwise they cannot be linked with FGH. For example, all what you write about the third extension: "Linear arrays, entries are more than 2. FGH limit: ω^^3". If it corresponds to {x1, x2, …, xn} using Bowers’ linear array notation, then FGH limit is w^w = ω^^2. But it is only assumption. I don’t know, what actually you mean.
  3. Uncountable cardinals and inaccessible cardinals cannot be levels of FGH since FGH was only defined for countable ordinals. That is why we use collapsing functions.
Denis Maksudov (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I note that the user has been blocked because of repetition of vandalisms, and hence will not respond...
p-adic 10:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Ordinals, ordinals, ordinals.

Hello. I respect your opinion about ordinals. They kinda look finite to me except for omega that 7.7 billion people know, right? hmmst... can i use the SGH for my googolisms that are replicas of yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenalexwcr1 (talkcontribs)

@Denis Maksudov

I added the signature for the user above, because he or she forgot to do so. I note that the account is an alternative account of Seangem1242, who wrote the last section.

p-adic 04:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@p-adic. Thank you.


> can i use the SGH for my googolisms that are replicas of yours?

I didn’t see your replicas of my googologisms. If you mean my numbers based on FGH and want to get new numbers, using SGH instead of FGH, then I will note that using of SGH for some pair α, n gives much smaller values, when assigning the same FSs.  For example Traddom=f_{ω+3}(10) is greater than Graham number, but using of SGH gives g_{ω+3}(10) which is just 13 (if ω[n]=n). Of course, using SGH with sufficiently large ordinals, you can get quite big numbers, but in any case, to avoid confusion with FGH-numbers, some other naming system should be used for SGH-numbers. Also note that SGH, as well as FGH, requires a system of fundamental sequences for ordinals, otherwise numbers g_α(n) will not be well-defined for α≥ω.

Denis Maksudov (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Stevenalexwcr1. Oh, I see you were blocked again. Denis Maksudov (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Chinese numerals

Hi. I found that you created a new converter! I would like to point out several errors.

  1. 10 is converted to 一十. It should be 十.
  2. 1001 is converted to 一千一. In Japan, it should be 千一. In China, it should be 一千零一,
  3. 1010 is converted to 一千一十. In Japan, it should be 千十. In China, it should be 一千零一十 or 一千零十,
  4. 1100 is converted to 一千一百. In Japan, it should be 千百. In China, it is correct, and it can also be 一千一(!)

p-adic 01:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I see that currently my converter omits zero (零) like in Japan but writes 一 before 百 and 千 like in China. I will correct the mistakes. Denis Maksudov (talk) 10:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Regiment project

Since PBot has said you're the copyright owner of some of the large number of Saibianism articles, this could play into the regiment project. Does that make you the "licensor" of each article since you were the first to publish each of them on Wikia? CC-BY-SA mainly has restrictions on the party denoted by "You" on the license page (who I assume is not necessarily the licensor, i.e. Denis), as well as some limits on what warranties the licensor can impose in section 5. So I think the regiment project could proceed (for those articles) if, for example, Denis is the one who continues it.

If someone other than Denis continues it, I think it will be more complex, but I think each restriction in section 4 is satisfied:

  • I don't think 4.a applies here becvause it seems to apply to some set of "collective works".
  • 4.b appears to be satisfied, since licenses are consistent between the individual articles and regiment articles.
  • 4.c appears to be satisfied, since the licensor's (Denis's) (user)name appears in the revision history.

In fact, in each example, the party denoted as "You" (the person carrying out the project) doesn't appear to need permission to carry this out, provided the person doing this has no previous copyright violations (see 1.f) C7X (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

When we publish an article on the Wikia for the first time, we do it under the CC-BY-SA license, and, thereby, we give other users the right to edit this article for improvement and addition, provided that a reference to the original author is saved (in the revision history) and the article remains under the CC-BY-SA license.
Personally, I see no obstacles and will only be happy if someone continues to develop, improve and supplement both the project as whole and individual articles.
Denis Maksudov (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)