Googology Wiki
Googology Wiki

Dear Kyodaisuu! On your web site wrote: "Fish number 7 (2013) extended the definition of Rayo's function by introducing oracle formula in the micro-language of Rayo's definition to go beyond Rayo's number" Is a very interesting! Can you describe this part of your work in English as soon as possible? Konkhra (talk) 22:31, October 17, 2013 (UTC)

Youtube account

Do you have a youtube account? if have tell me the url, thanks. JiawhienIsBackNoEvadeBlockOnceAgainIComeBack (talk) 13:24, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't. Kyodaisuu (talk) 13:53, November 22, 2013 (UTC)


Stop creating pages with the only sources being this wiki. It should be published off-wiki. Wythagoras (talk) 07:06, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Can I delete them? Kyodaisuu (talk) 07:13, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
As you are admin, can you delete Dollar function and R function? Kyodaisuu (talk) 07:18, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Done. Wythagoras (talk) 07:24, July 19, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Kyodaisuu (talk) 07:24, July 19, 2014 (UTC)

The number 63

Any particular reasons why you chose 63 as a base of your Fish numbers? I suspect it may be because 63 is one less than 64, which is used in the definition of Graham's number, but I'm not sure. WikiRigbyDude (talk) 18:49, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

It's probably also anime-related. King2218 (talk) 20:02, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
*googles 63 anime* WikiRigbyDude (talk) 20:14, August 25, 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to make it similar to Graham's number. So it should be 64. I don't remember why I mistook it as 63. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 22:12, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Tyler Z

There's a guy named "Tyler Zahnke" who, as I understand it, is trying to organize an international googology conference of some sort. Since you've become an ambassador of sorts between the Japanese- and English-language communities, maybe you should get in touch with him. He's put up his contact info here. you'! 02:05, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can attend the conference, but anyway I contacted him by twitter. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 15:50, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

Are you able to translate Sushi Kohuuken to English?

Cookiefonster (talk) 15:37, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

I will meet the author on Saturday, so I will talk to him about it. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 15:52, September 18, 2014 (UTC)

Extension of the m(m,n) map

On your site you wrote that m(m,n) map can actually reach \(\varphi(\omega,0)\). Can't it be further extended to a n-argument function, to reach \(\Gamma_0\) or even \(\vartheta(\Omega^\omega)\)? Wythagoras (talk) 16:24, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that sentence, I didn't know at all how to achieve such level. Now, if I study dollar function, for example, it might be possible to make such extension. Actually, the system of Fish number is too complex at this level and I am confused ... 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:00, January 28, 2015 (UTC)

Second Googological Olympiad

Are you interested in participating in the second olympiad?Deedlit11 (talk) 10:02, April 3, 2015 (UTC)

Sushi Kokuuhen

The links to Sushi Kokuuhen are all dead - it appears that the Ura Sunday took the comic down, and now I can't find links to mirrors anywhere. Do you know where we can find another copy of them? 02:04, April 7, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sad to see this project gone, I was hoping to get an English translation put together eventually :( -- vel! 20:44, April 9, 2015 (UTC)


hi kyodaisuu, i'm @vel on Googoldon. please check your private messages on there, thanks :) -- vel! 02:58, July 16, 2018 (UTC)

thanks. i replied. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 19:18, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Member of the panel

Hey, do you want to be the member of the panel? We are discussing it here. Triakula (talk) 12:04, February 8, 2020 (UTC)

Yes. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 04:45, February 9, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Triakula (talk) 06:08, February 9, 2020 (UTC)


if you love fish numbers go swim in an aquarium 10:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypertetrakulus44 (talkcontribs)

Immensely late reply to why 63

Because most explanations say so take \(3\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow 3\) and put it into two threes and repeat that 63 times. This is also why i originally thought of graham’s number being g_63, but however, the first g_1 is also counted. That is the question, answered, 7 years later. Why not? Mumuji Penguin (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That should be the reason why I used 63 for Fish numbers. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 14:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


You said "C7X declares that the account will be deleted.", where is it? koteitan (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Here C7X says "My account's getting deleted soon, so I won't have much time". 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal you to become an admin

As I proposed in here, what do you think about to be an admin?

Thank you. Kanrokoti (talk) 11:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If Hexirp accepts, I can also be an admin and assist him. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Good! I appreciate it.Kanrokoti (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It looks like User:Hexirp became an admin, how about you? ARsygo (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Then I accept to be an admin and support you. I am not as active as you ARsygo but as you cannot be active 24/7 it would be helpful to have mutiple admins so that we can react to vandals or whatsoever ASAP. For designing a new rule or whatsoever, I trust Hexirp and I just support him. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


It looks like this user blanks the user's talk page that contains a notice on unsourced article. Can you revert it?

Also, Do we need to add a {{warning}} template to the user? ARsygo (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I did. Just wait for the response. If he blanks again, we can put a warning template. Besides, I would like to ask your opinion about Talk:6. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 08:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
anyway, Moving an article with sources to a user namespace isn't allowed, right? Because I see the user moved "woogol" to the user page. ARsygo (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Generally moving a page requires a reason. Main page article does not belong to a special user so moving a page to a users page without reason is not allowed, although not explicitly written in the policy. The user writes in the reason that the number has same value with another number. In that case, the user can propose to integrate the pages, but just moving the page to user's subpage is not justified. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 07:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
> Main page article does not belong to a special user so moving a page to a users page without reason is not allowed, although not explicitly written in the policy.
I note that it is prohibitted in the policy: "Similarly, we should not move articles with contributions by other users unless we have discussions at the talk page."
p-adic 10:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I see. I just checked the vandalism section. So we can use this section to warn the user. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have written the sentence at the vandalism section, or at least refer to it at the vandalism section. (The rule was added when we had a user who repeated edit wars including unconstructive edits and moving articles many times.) Please place it at an approrpiate location.
p-adic 11:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we can consider revising. Anyway the warning this time is to be given according to the current policy. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 11:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
It was by another user, right? 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 08:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that user already blocked before, how many warnings to get it reblocked? ARsygo (talk) 08:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
3 warnings after the last block is the policy of this community. Just keep in mind that we can always block if a user violates Fandom TOS, in which the warning is not necessary. I use it for obvious vandalists only. But this case (moving to a user's subpage) is not as severe and may apply the usual 3-warning rule. Anyway in the current rule a user may vandalise after 3 months, and if a user repeats it, we can consider it as the violation of TOS and block without period. We can maybe decide case by case. Anyway it is better to describe the record of block in the talk page so that we can know that when the new count of warning starts. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Report 2

Hmm... judging by the user activity in this page, it seems that the user created alternate accounts, actually. Can we deal with it? ARsygo (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I think that a new account with a user name very similar to a blocked account behaving in a similar way can be blocked, because the new account is highly suspected as either an alternative account or an inpersonating account of the blocked user. It is good to have the new account to have right to edit his or her talk page so that he or she can justify the account when the blocking is a mistake.
p-adic 00:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
It is a violation of the rule of edit war. The user can be blocked without warning, if ARsygo thinks that the account is a sockpuppet of the blocked account, because current policy allows an admin to block a user without warning when it is regarded as harmful. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 03:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
But, it seems that the original user hasn't blocked now, but had been blocked before. So, do we need to block both of the accounts and protect the page here? ARsygo (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I thought that the original user is blocked, but I was wrong. (By the way, it might be good to have a rule or a mild recomendation to ask users to clarify his or her all accounts, in order to help admins to judge whether a given account is inpersonating or not.)
p-adic 04:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the original user can be blocked again, because there is a possibility that the new user is another user, and in that case the original user is punished by the activity of another user. The original user may have not noticed that the block period is over and made another account. Anyway we can ask the new user if the account is same as the blocked (and unblocked) user, although it is not expected that the user responds. Without a rule, we can always ask something to a user. We can also give a warning for the "edit war". After that, if the new user do something strange again and it becomes clear that the user has malicious intention, we can block immediately. If the once-blocked user do something strange again, we can block again immediately. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Report 3

Anyway, does the contributions of this user considered somewhat unconstructive, actually? Because I see a lot of revisions done by the user, actually. ARsygo (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I checked some changes. The user edits so many times for a single page, but as a whole the edits are not destructive, if not constructive. I am not sure if it can be warned as unconstructive edits, as far as what I checked. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 11:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
For example, please check this change. Right, it does not look so harmful, but this change is given by 85 edits in less than 9 minutes. The whole change actually includes a constructive edit, but many of the edits in the 84 edits are really unconstructive. Say, you can check the following:
inserting empty braces
ubnserting non-sense word "hubo"
replacing the braced non-sense word by "h" and braced "Sbo"
replacing the non-sense word "Sho" by "Sbto"
replacing the non-sense word "Sbto" by "Sbtuo"
Nearly all of the edits are given in this way. I notified the user that other users are annoyed by this attitude because those unconstructive edits hide most edits in "Recent Changes", and proposed two solutions:
  1. To mark the "minor edit" box to indicate that all the edits are minor edit. (I note that all of the edits are dealt with as major rivisions.)
  2. To use the "preview" button to reduce the massive unconstructive edits into one.
But the user is still continuing the attitude. For example, if someone intentionally inserted a spam and removed it, then it can be consudred as "edits inclusing an unconstructive edit". Otherwise, vandals can freely enjoy to destruct articles or insert profane words as long as they quickly hide edits by other constructive edits. Therefore I agree that we need a stronger request by an admin such as a warning, as we have asked the user to stop it.
p-adic 23:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I see. It is actually a very strange behaviour. I wrote a comment here. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you!
p-adic 14:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
And now, the user continued to do the same behaviour (have a look at recent changes for more info), can someone warn the user? If not, I'll warn the user. ARsygo (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Since fish officially allowed to put the warning, I did it.
p-adic 23:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for that... so, if the user still does the same thing... can we safe to assume that the admins (including myself) can block the user? (As the user did it before we realised it). ARsygo (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
If an admin thinks that it is a reasonable decision which can be accepted by the community, then he or she can block the user (with any span which can be accepted by the community) as long as the user does the same violation. Also, if there are three valid warnings, an admin can judge them and decide to block the user (with at least three months).
p-adic 00:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I noticed the user made some unconstructive edits in selected articles in chronological order: (look at the history of these articles by append ?action=history after the name of the article) sarantastaculated-tethrathoth, Hyper-hyper-hyper-terinntertoldeus, Eight-ex-terrible tethriditerator, ogdastaculated-secundotethrated-tethracross, Tethridecatetratediterated-tethracross, Tethrinonatetratediterated-tethracross, Googolbangplexplex, Tethriseptatetratediterated-tethracross, Godgahlah-carta-terinngathor, Tethriquinticulcubor (more than 70 edits in 5 minutes), Tethriquadratetratediterated-tethracross, Five-ex-terrible tethrateron etc. So, do we need to block the user in order to avoid further "recent changes" disruptions? ARsygo (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
They are before the warning. As it is a merginal case, I would wait if the user keeps doing it after the latest warning. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have held a discussion about it before ARsygo got so tired against these edits. I noticed that the user is repeating massive edits, but I did not notice that most of them are filled with actually unconstructive ones.
p-adic 13:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)