11,329
pages

## Pi notation

Can you help me with my Pi notation analysis?12AbBa (talk) 06:32, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Also, I want to extend the notation, but it turned out inconsistent. Can you help me with that?12AbBa (talk) 09:44, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Well, I actually have an extension ready for just this occasion. Allow me to introduce the $$\pi_1()$$ function. Here are some values to show how this works:

• $$\pi_1(0) = \Omega$$
• $$\pi_1(0,1) = \Omega\omega$$
• $$\pi_1(0,\omega) = \Omega\omega^\omega$$
• $$\pi_1(0,\Omega) = \Omega^2$$
• $$\pi_1(0,\Omega\omega) = \Omega^\omega$$
• $$\pi_1(0,\Omega^2) = \Omega^\Omega$$
• $$\pi_1(1) = \pi_1(0,\pi_1(0,\pi_1(0,\cdots))) = \varepsilon_{\Omega+1}$$
• $$\pi_1(1,1) = \varepsilon_{\Omega+2}$$
• $$\pi_1(1,\Omega) = \varepsilon_{\Omega2}$$
• $$\pi_1(2) = \zeta_{\Omega+1}$$
• $$\pi_1(\omega) = \varphi(\omega,\Omega+1)$$
• $$\pi_1(\omega[\omega+1]) = \varphi(\omega+1,\Omega+1)$$
• $$\pi_1(\omega[\Omega]) = \varphi(\Omega,1)$$ (yes, you can do that, but inside $$\pi_1()$$ only)
• $$\pi(\omega[\Omega+1]) = \varphi(\Omega+1,0)$$
• $$\pi_1(\omega+1) = \Gamma_{\Omega+1}$$
• $$\pi_1(\omega^2+1) = \varphi(1,0,0,\Omega+1)$$
• $$\pi_1(\omega^\omega) = \psi_1(\Omega_2^{\Omega_2^\omega})$$
• $$\pi_1(\omega^\omega+1) = \psi_1(\Omega_2^{\Omega_2^{\Omega_2}})$$
• $$\pi_1(\varepsilon_0) = \psi_1(\Omega_3)$$
• $$\pi_1(\psi(\Omega_2)) = \psi_1(\Omega_4)$$
• $$\pi_1(\pi(\Omega)) = \pi_1(\psi(\Omega_\omega)) = \psi_1(\Omega_\omega)$$
• $$\pi_1(\pi(\Omega+1)) = \psi_1(I_\omega)$$
• $$\pi_1(\pi(\Omega2)) = \psi_1(T_\omega)$$

Of course, we can continue putting higher countable ordinal into $$\pi_1$$ inside of $$\pi$$. Then we reach $$\pi(\pi_1(\Omega))$$, which is the firts fixed point of $$\alpha = \pi(\pi_1(\alpha))$$, and $$\pi(\pi_1(\Omega,1))$$, which is the second such fixed point. Of course, we can reach things like $$\pi(\pi_1(\Omega+1))$$, $$\pi(\pi_1(\Omega2))$$, $$\pi(\pi_1(\pi_1(1)))$$, etc. And $$\pi(\Omega_2)$$ is the limit of $$\pi(\pi_1(\pi_1(\pi_1(\cdots))))$$.

So yeah, that was my planned extension to ordinals with cardinality $$\Omega$$. You can do similar things for ordinals of higher cardinality of the form $$\Omega_n$$.

Username5243 (talk) 10:51, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!!12AbBa (talk) 12:33, August 21, 2019 (UTC)

Most of Pi notation 4 is speculation. If anything is wrong you're free to change it.12AbBa (talk) 15:07, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

## Wow.

You're making a lot of edits lately. -- From the googol and beyond -- 22:42, July 17, 2016 (UTC)

He still needs over three times his current amount to beat Edwin though. Siwwi Kitty (talk) 22:22, December 3, 2019 (UTC)

## Mistake?

You seem to have left out a significant portion of the Geegol Group. LegionMammal978 (talk) 16:39, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

## Small question

Just curious, how do you go about converting numbers from E#/xE# to up-arrow notation, chained arrow notation, etc. and vice versa? (sorry if this is the wrong place to ask) LegionMammal978 (talk) 02:31, July 23, 2016 (UTC)

## I got up to Cubgailia group

WAY, WAY, Way, way bigger than yours. AarexWikia04 (talk) 15:35, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

This competition is blazing! -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:39, July 24, 2016 (UTC)
Do you want to join our competition? Also, thanks! AarexWikia04 (talk) 15:47, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

pls join -- From the googol and beyond -- 16:49, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

## Adding category for ExE numbers

Don't add category Category:Composite numbers to numbers above a million. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 13:20, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know that. Thanks. Should I keep Category:Non-powers where I did? Username5243 (talk) 13:22, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

I think that's OK, though it's a subcategory of "Composite numbers". The limit for "Composite numbers" prevent from adding too much numbers to it; however, there're only a small amount of numbers are of "Non-powers". {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 13:31, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

I think I fixed most of it, if I didn't let me know. Username5243 (talk) 13:25, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

__STATICREDIRECT__ appears to be a flag to bots (or maybe a built-in feature in MediaWiki?) when the target is moved somewhere else, the redirect shouldn't be retargeted to the new location (therefore making the redirect "static", hence the name). It is automatically added when you create a redirect using VisualEditor. Since there appears to be no bots fixing double redirects on this wiki, this shouldn't much be a problem. That doesn't stop it from bothering me though. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:45, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not using that so I guess that's why it's not there when I make a redirect. I've removed it because as far as I could see it didn't do anything. I've fixed several double redirects - the only remaining ones are extended SI prefixes that presumably weren't moved over when the "prefix 10^x" pages were made, and some user-pages that I guess are intensional double redirects. Username5243 (talk) 14:50, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

## i see what you did there

category argument -- From the googol and beyond -- 20:13, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

That who thinks is better AarexWikia04 - 22:51, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to try something original, you're welcome to do it. Username5243 (talk) 23:28, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

## What are you doing

Are you moving extensions to your site? AarexWikia04 - 00:02, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am making progress on that. I'm also planning to do my names for UNAN numbers and stuff. And BTW will you continue the AAN vs UNAN page on your site? Username5243 (talk) 00:25, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do. AarexWikia04 - 01:06, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

## Mistakes on new extended cascading-E number pages

You mistakenly wrote [[Extended cascading--E notation]] instead of [[Extended cascading-E notation]] on new number pages in last 10+ articles, and this is still continuing. {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 15:17, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

By the way, congrats on creating the 6000th article! -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:23, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

I will fix them (unless you want to).

Whenever I make a bunch of pages, I usually type out one and then copy-paste the rest. So chances are that the mistake was made on one article and then accidentally copied throughout the rest of them.

I think that's all the xE^ numbers today - I've got to finish the gugolthra regiment as the last number created there was [gugolsaranta]]. Username5243 (talk) 15:28, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

## Moving number pages to uppercase ones

It seems that you move some pages in the form "Abcde...-mnopq..." to "Abcde...-Mnopq...", leaving lots of multiple redirects. Can you explain this? {hyp/^,cos} (talk) 05:21, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to do this, as other people were doing pages in the uppercase form, and I wanted to be consistent. Could you plesae delete the lowercase versions of some of these pages (with the exceptions of things like Ternary-googol and most of the lowercase googol variants that don't redirect (plus binary-googol)? Thanks! Username5243 (talk) 10:05, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to delete them. I don't want to delete redirects with alternative caps. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 14:11, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. I'm doing it this way because (1) I have them in uppercase on my site and (2) when Denis did some yesterday he did capitalized versions. If you want to make lowercased redirects for them, fine with me. Username5243 (talk) 14:18, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Denis Maksudov (talk) 13:02, August 25, 2016 (UTC)@username, today I plan to do pages with your numbers (Toogol Regiment), I'll be redirecting numbers 10 \up arrow^3 (1-10, 25,100) because I have found they are in number list of this wikia.I plan to use next template Toovol if  something wrong let me know

Looks good. Username5243 (talk) 13:15, August 25, 2016 (UTC)

o'k let "enenintaeltothol" is the border of "tetrational..."

Now I plan to begin create pages Beyond #^#^#^#^#, how do we call category for numbers between #^#^#^#^# (w^w^w^w^w) and epsilon?Denis Maksudov (talk) 11:36, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

Here's another error I found: Talk:Toogolduduex -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:51, February 12, 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted your last edit in the sandbox. While I understand sandbox should be considered "free for all" to do what they want, we don't want "write a bigger number" kind of thing for reasons explained here (it does only explicitly mentions blogs and forum, but the reasons apply just as well to the sandbox). LittlePeng9 (talk) 22:16, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

## Extensions

I call this extension 9b In one of the rules of extension 9, you should search for the innermost separator containing the {}1, and then make it so M and N are so the separator you found is {M,1,1N}, and change to seperator to Sb, where S0 is 0 and Sn is M{S(n-1)}N. For example, 0{0,11}11 becomes 0{0{0{0{0{0{}1}11}1}11}1}11, which is as strong as the limit of the current system. My optimization has limit ordinal Bachmann-Howard Ordinal, while your notation only has limit ordinal Fefermann-Schutte Ordinal. This is very similar to Expanding Array notation by Hyp Cos

### Multiple levels of comma

I call this extension 10 We can have ,n and {}n in Extension 10. The subscript-value of a separator is the number on the subscript of the right bracket of the separator. Separators can even have ordinal subscript-value. ,n has subscript value of n, and {} has subscript value of 0. If you see a ,n, you search for a separator with a subscript-value lower than the comma. If the subscript-value is lower than the subscript-value of the common minus 1, you add a separator. 0{}n-11 inside the separator. Otherwise, you iterate like the previous extension but with an n-subcript separator This has limit ordinal psi(psiI(0))

Bubby3 (talk) 21:15, February 11, 2017 (UTC)

## Proof of number

You wanted proof of the number I posted on the googology wikia. I wanted to post proof so dont delete this number. You can find it in the list of large numbers on wikipedia. I have provided a link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers

Here is the talk on the page: http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Nuzillion

Hope you accept ScienceWikis (talk) 04:13, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

The edit on Wikipedia that added the number happened after the time this page was created (01:41, February 17, 2017 (UTC)). As a result, I consider this an attempt of citogenesis, which has happened a few times with SI prefixes (see "The xeraflop scandal" section). To prevent this from happening, I'm going to delete this article (actually move it to my user page, off the article space) and revert the edit on the Wikipedia article. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 09:53, February 17, 2017 (UTC)

## Why you quit Discord?

Why?!?!? Googleaarex (talk) 21:23, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

Why is the UNAN page deleted?Why?Did it ever exist in the first place?Boboris02 (talk) 20:36, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it never existed in the first place. I and some other people linked to it so maybe someone could create an article about it in the future. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 04:44, March 9, 2017 (UTC)

JonnyGamer2002 (talk) 22:27, March 8, 2017 (UTC) Thanks! Sorry, I'm new here and don't really understand how this wikia works I will try to move it to my talk page

I understand now.Boboris02 (talk) 17:39, March 10, 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me, can I ask you something about your googolism's name? Apparently, there are 5 names that are originally used by Saibian. Can I remake the page teroogol, petoogol, ectoogol, zettoogol and yottoogol? (All of these names are originally from Saibian before he changed to tetroogol, pentoogol, hexoogol, heptoogol and ogdoogol respectively) Source: shortened list ARsygo (talk) 12:48, March 19, 2017 (UTC)

Sure, just make the page. However you may want to put something at the top that says something like, "This page is a bout Username5243's number teroogol. for the number that Sbiis Saibian used to call teroogol, see tetroogol." Or something along those lines. Username5243 (talk) 13:16, March 19, 2017 (UTC)

## Just a guess...

But is 10[0{2}1]100 going to be called planoogol or something like that?

73.235.194.108 01:47, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

Yes! Username5243 (talk) 09:33, March 29, 2017 (UTC)

## Further UNAN extensions

Here are some suggestions for UNAN extensions:

• Nested first-order array notation (NFoAN)
• Second-order comma array notation (SoCAN)
• Nested second-order array notation (NSoAN)
• Higher order separator array notation (HoSAN)
• Array-order separator array notation (AoSAN)

73.235.194.108 15:09, May 2, 2017 (UTC)

This isn't matching with Username's extension list. Googleaarex (talk) 20:36, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

## Avengium asking for Discord app

Hi 5243, is there a discord chat server for users of googology wikia to talk? I have the discord app, and i think the text channel of discord is similar to the irc chat googology wikia. Avengium1 (talk) 10:31, May 11, 2017 (UTC)

## Poll

Which one is an original word?

I think typo is not tyop's itself, but tyop is typo's itself. Internet users already defined 'typo' that the definition is original. Googleaarex (talk) 20:35, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

## Analyses/Comparisons

Were you (on Dennis Maksudov's page) proposing analyze/compare his system,or mine?--L.E./12.144.5.2 01:32, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

where

Thus

if I correctly understood the phrase: This resulting number is then used as every term of a Bowers Exploding Array measuring as many in each of as many dimensions.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 19:08, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

The number emerging from the Moser phase of each of the n cycles of the popble is used as the value of every term,the size of every dimension,and the number of dimensions in that cycle's Bowers array.(Bowers wrote to me that "2 popbled easily beats a gongulus" when I was using the old definition of popble,where the first Knuth phase would have been 4^^^^4 rather than 2 uu 2 repetitions of 2 uu 2 each separated by 2 uu 2 Knuth arrows(2 uu 2 = 2 u 65536,or 2 raised to a power tower of 65536 exponents of which the first three are 2,4,and 65536,and the rest each the entire value of the power tower below).L.E./12.144.5.2 20:14, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
Let's define Bowers phase as {n,n(n)2} using BEAF where n is result from the Moser phase. Even excluding all another phases (with only Bowers phases in cycle) after n cycles we have. It's bigger than gongulus for n=2.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 20:50, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
Of course when you popble 2 there are only 2 cycles,and my pages popble numbers much larger than 2.
When I specify "popble n x times",there are n cycles in the first popbling but each new popbling is of the number that emerged from the previous one and has that many cycles.(I am interested in knowing how my Titled Numbers,Alphabet Numbers,Epstein Numbers stack up against other people's named numbers that are similarly the product of prescribed calculations).12.144.5.2 21:08, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
Those boundaries are not too accurate but all your numbers generated using popble must be here.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 21:26, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
The same class as a dulatri (array of 729 3's) and trimentri(array of 3^^^3 3's) when I'm producing vastly greater numbers of vastly greater numbers in vastly greater dimensions?12.144.5.2 21:47, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
From what I see, you aren't. As Denis notes, popble is a composition of functions, one of which is approximately, and the others are much weaker. Thus a single popble is weaker than two applications of, and "popble n times" is less than n+1 applications of, or approximately. If we then go to "popble n n times, take the result, popble the result that many times, take that result, popble the result that many times... repeat this procedure n times", that is repeatingn times, which is. If we then go to "Repeat that whole previous procedure n times, each time taking the result and replacing n with it", that would be. As you can see, it is hard to get much beyondin this fashion. You really need sophisticated structures that organize the recursion if you want to get toor higher. I don't see that on your webpages. Deedlit11 (talk) 21:59, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
You include the Alphabet Number Function and Epstein Number Function in this?12.144.5.2 22:06, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
The Alphabet Number Function is just a smorgasbord of different functions being applied some large number of times, so it's going to be at the level offor some small c. Let's replacewith. For the Epstein Number Function, step two iterates the Alphabet Number Function a bunch of times, so it is at level. Step 4 iterates step 2 (and steps 1 and 3, but they are no stronger than step 2) a bunch of times, so that gets you to level. E(n) iterates this procedure n-1 times, so it is at level. E(n,1) iterates E(n) E(n) times, so it is at level. E(n,2) iterates E(n,1) E(n,1) times, so level. In general E(n,m) is at level.
E(n,1,1) diagonalizes and iterates over E(n,m), so it is at level. At this point, you do not define what E(n,a,b) is, but I'm going to presume that you decrement the last argument and iterate over the previous argument. (Correct me if this is not what you intended.) Then E(n,1,b) is at level. E(n,1,1,1) diagonalizes and iterates again, so it is at level, then E(n,1,1,1,1) is at level, and in general E(n,1,1,...,1) with m+1 1's is at levelThe overall strength of the Epstein Number Function is therefore at level, or. Deedlit11 (talk) 22:45, September 12, 2017 (UTC)
I note that similar conclusions were reached by Googology Noob on his talk page when I was here last year,but I'm still not getting how prolonged hyper-exponential increases in the number of dimensions of a Bowers array can never stop producing essentially equivalent values by your measure.

So just what numbers are larger or smaller than the Resurrection Celebration Number?12.144.5.2 23:09, September 12, 2017 (UTC)

For your first point -is hyper-exponential, as is, or, or, but all of these are (much) slower growing than. So we can compose any collection of these slower growing functions, in any order we want, until our arms grow tired and our hard drive is full from the size of our text file. And the composition of all these functions will still be slower growing than. So, if we apply all these functions, and stick it into the number of dimensions in a Bowers array, we will be applying something less thanand then applying something comparable with, so we get something less than. Is this much bigger? In some absolute sense yes... our input is much bigger than n, so the much larger number to a very fast-growing function should get us a much much larger number. But this is "much bigger" in the same way thatis "much bigger"; the former number is a very large power of the second, so in that sense it is bigger. But, at the scale we need to represent it, the numbers look very similar. So, in a relative sense, it's not much bigger at all.
The same thing is true of. It's larger than, but it's smaller than, sinceisapplied n times rather than 2, where n is whatever monstrous number we're plugging in. So just as the significant numbers in the former case were 100.00000000001 and 100, the significant ordinals in this case areand, and those seem really close. Basically, once you are far up in the fast-growing hierarchy, the difference between "do procedure X" and "do procedure X n times" is considered slight, since it represents just one level difference in the fast-growing hierarchy. But, when you think about it, it can blow your mind - your creating a BEAF array with a humongous number of dimensions, then you evaluate it and stick it into an array with THAT number of dimensions, then you create an array with THAT number of dimensions - and you repeat the procedure some humongous number of times! And there's nothing wrong with thinking that this IS much bigger - as long as you realize this is just adding one to the ordinal subscript. So, you can begin to imagine just how terrifyingly big is!
As for what is bigger than the Resurrection Celebration Number - well, I'm not going to rigorously go through every thing you've added to create this number, but looking through the page, there doesn't seem to be anything there that is enormously better than the Epstein Number Function. For example, in your description of the Epstein Nominating Number Function, there are quite a few things that are unclear - but, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism or recursive structure that is much better than the ENF, so I'm quite confident it doesn't add an additional. Note that nested subscripting E's is not all that powerful, it is better to generate long sequences in your subscripted arrays. So, I believe that the overall strength of your notation isn't going to crack, so we just need to pick a number that greatly exceeds that level. Hydra(6) seems like a good example. (See Kirby-Paris hydra.) For a smaller number, take anything at the dimensional array level that doesn't iterate it as many times, like Gongulusplex. Deedlit11 (talk) 00:50, September 13, 2017

(UTC)

The Hydra article says the function is "on par with tetrational BEAF arrays" and it seems to me I've passed that.I have some of my rules generating extremely long subscripts (counting from 1 up to recently reached numbers very slowly through cycles of ever more repetitions of each number).A gongulusplex is way below a trimentri,and I think I've demonstrated I'm way past that.12.144.5.2 01:54, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
No, the Hydra function is at the level ofwhich is an infinite power tower of's, and I've argued why your strongest function isn't past. Don't let the term "tetrational arrays" fool you, it's power is nothing like tetration. Do you have an argument for why your numbers have passed the, or is it a matter of thinking that your numbers are really, really big, and that tetrational arrays and functions couldn't possibly be as big? That doesn't really cut it - there are people who have created numbers below the Ackermann level who were convinced that their numbers were ginormous and no one could make numbers that big. And it's because these numbers really are big, until you meet numbers that are bigger yet.
If you indeed have an argument for why your numbers have passed trimentri or tetrational arrays, feel free to post it here or elsewhere, and I will take a look. Deedlit11 (talk) 02:18, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
As I noted,Bowers refers to the trimentri as "a 3 tetrated to 3 array of 3's"...if you even popble 3 once you are past 3^^^^3 in the Knuth phase of the first cycle,and after Conway and Moser specify the number of dimensions and entries a much larger number is entered into in the Bowers phase...it would appear that any Titled Number would wallop trimentri.I do note that in the same email where he said 2 popbled (with the older weaker definition) would beat a gongulus,he said a gongulus popbled would fall short of a goppatoth,but I'm popbling numbers much bigger than a gongulus,more times than a gongulus.12.144.5.2 03:18, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
No, you are misinterpreting "a 3 tetrated to 3 array of 3's". It's not regular tetration. Tetration is just, it's nothing. Note that Bowers didn't mean "3 tetrated to (3 array of 3's)", he meant "(3 tetrated to 3) array of 3's", where "3 tetrated to 3" describes the array structure. A "3 array of 3's" would just be a linear array of 3 3's, {3,3,3}. A "3^2 array of 3's" is a planar array; it's a 3x3 square grid of 3's, which we resolve using the appropriate rules. So it's not a "9 array of 3's", even though 3^2 = 9. A "3^3 array of 3's" is three dimensional array; it's a collection of 27 3's arranged in a 3x3x3 cube, and again we resolve it appropriately. Then a "m^n array of b's" would be a collection of m^n b's, arranged in a hypercube of dimension n, with n numbers along each side. So this is the strength of your popble. Then we can go to something like a "3^3^2 array of 3's". Here the dimensions themselves can no longer be represented by a single number, they form an ordered pair, and the initial dimensions for a 3x3 grid; namely we use the ordered pairs (0,0), (0,1), (0,2), (1,0), (1,1), (1,2), (2,0), (2,1), (2,2) as the initial dimensions. (However, as we reduce much bigger numbers will appear in the first argument.) This will take you well beyond popble and the Epstein Number Function, and any function that appears on your site I believe. Trimentri is a "3^3^3 array of 3's", so the dimensions appear as ordered triplets, and and the numbers are even bigger. So yeah, this is all a misunderstanding on the use of the word "tetrated". Deedlit11 (talk) 04:53, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying that for the m^n array of b's,it doesn't matter how big n gets or how many layers of such arrays are used to define it.I'm still not getting that.12.144.5.2 17:12, September 13, 2017 (UTC)
It does matter; for example, if you stuck Rayo's number into, obviously the result will be bigger than Rayo's number. But the question is, how big are the numbers you are plugging in? Let's say that the strongest function you are using is at the level of. (For n-dimensional arrays, we will have.) What can we plug into the input of. If the number is constructed using processes that are all weaker than dimensional arrays, then the number will definitely be less than, to take an absurdly large upper bound. So after we plug this number into, we will get a number less than, which will be less than. If you go a little farther, and plug the number inton times (along with some lesser operations that have no chance of beating, no matter how many you use), then you get a number less than, which will be less than$\displaystyle f_{\alpha+1}(n+2})$ . You can then repeat this process n times to get to, and then repeat THAT process times to get... this is about the level of you Alphabet Number Function. And there is nothing wrong with doing this, it's just that this is at the very beginning of the amount of recursive iterations and diagonalizations that you need to do to get to, for instance. The dimensional arrays of Bowers utilize much more recursion than is present on your web pages. Of course, your notation goes on top of dimensional arrays, but this just means that you get to an ordinalwithmuch less than.
I wonder if perhaps you had a line of thinking along the lines of "popble of 2 is already more than a gongulus, so iterating it a bunch of times should get me much higher up the large number hierarchy". This turns out not to be true. The processes we are using are so strong that an entire level of recursion only advances the ordinal subscript by 1; to advance a significant way beyond dimensional arrays, you need some recursive structure that is much stronger than dimensional arrays. Put another way, if you are able to get significantly beyond dimensional arrays, you would then be able to remove the dimensional arrays from your notation, and the notation would basically still be as strong. Your Epstein Number Function has the type of recursive structure that I am talking about, but it is still a baby recursive structure, relatively speaking. Deedlit11 (talk) 22:42, September 20, 2017 (UTC)
I suppose my problem is understanding how an array's extreme number of dimensions doesn't get it past being "dimensional",or what it means to be past "dimensional".(Have you looked at the recursions in the nominating-number-incrementing functions?)12.144.5.2 16:22, September 30, 2017 (UTC)

I've been making a bunch of contributions to your wikia site (otherwise idle for months) on the assumption that its intent is to be more inclusive of original contributions than this one.If that is not the case it's obviously in both our best interests for me to stop.Please advise.L.E./12.144.5.2 02:48, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

## Goodnight!

Goodnight to you to! Gabe Newel the Internet Troll (talk) 02:55, March 8, 2018 (UTC)

## Judge the rate of growth

Would you be willing to have a brief glance on the function I design, posted on my blog. I do not know how to estimate its rate or growth.Boris Huller (talk) 23:05, May 12, 2018 (UTC)

Hey user, can you DM me a link to the Discord on xkcd? I think someone tried to invite me on my talk page, but the link didn't work. ~εmli 21:34, May 13, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't run the Discord - Alemagno12 does, so he is the one who can get invite links. And he appears to be offline at this moment. I'll ask him to get me one. Username5243 (talk) 22:27, May 13, 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what she's referring to with ''Discord on xkcd'', and furthermore, on her talk page, the original invite (by Boboris02) seems to be for the ''NEOS server'', which I don't remember what it refers to. Nishada 23:23, May 13, 2018 (UTC)

Huh okay, thought NEOS was the googology Discord. And I meant for user to send me the link via PM on the xkcd forum. Can you just check your inbox on xkcd instead? ~εmli 22:08, May 14, 2018 (UTC)

## I want to ask you something in private

Please write an e-mail to Nathan (googologycourse@gmail.com), so he can forward it to me and we'll have each other's email address.

Thank you. PsiCubed2 (talk) 01:01, May 31, 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you have a bad username, and you can be blocked from editing if you don't change your username. {{SUBST:user|Physicsphysics}} 19:37, April 5, 2019 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with Username5243? DrCocktor (talk) 21:22, April 5, 2019 (UTC)

## Alright

ok i listen to edit messege, thx!! :D Forthright (talk) 00:57, October 22, 2019 (UTC)

(ps whats the biggest number youve made? 🤩🤩🤩🤩)

## Come on Edwin, stop adding all this crumbs to this talk page.

This is ridiculous; everyone knows you're Edwin, @Mr.Bean on the Scene . (and look, I know it's a bad Idea to respond to Edwin sockpuppets, but we can't let this stupidity keep going.) (edit vv no he isn't an actor) Moooosey (talk) 22:39, November 4, 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I am a sock-puppet of acclaimed comedian and actor Rowan Atkinson. Mr.Bean on the Scene (talk) 22:45, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
I am Rowan Atkinson though! The above is an audio clip of my latest feature. I shouldn't be spilling the Beans like this, but I'm starring in a dramatic 3-hour I-Max adaptation of Edwin's sockpuppetry. I get the lead role! Mr.Bean on the Scene (talk) 23:02, November 4, 2019 (UTC)
Why do you like to troll everyone on this wiki? What benefit does it give you? Does it give you some sense of satisfaction every time we realize how one account is you?Moooosey (talk) 23:09, November 4, 2019 (UTC)

Fandoom15555555555 (talk) 18:35, November 9, 2019 (UTC)

you're amazing <3 i'm still not familiar at editing wiki pages

## Question

Could you explain why we should not use $$<$$? Please clarify the reason why we must use character reference. The use of an inequality in LaTeX is standard, and hence I could not understand why my description in the article for N primitive is worse.

p-adic 02:47, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, what? Not sure what you mean, but as far as I can tell the edit you reverted did actually make some of the grammar better (from my perspective as a native English speaker).

Username5243 (talk) 02:55, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

This is the second time someone converted inequalities in the article into character references. I clarified that the use of inequalities are correct, and hence there is no reason why they should be replaced by character references in the reason of the first "undo revision". But another one repeated the same conversion without any clarification of the reason. Therefore I wrote "Same reason" for the second revision. Shouldn't I revert the unintended conversion of the inequalities? Or is there any reasons why we should not use inequalities in the article? I am not talking about the grammer of the natural language.
p-adic 03:00, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I still don't get why you think this is such a big deal, or why it matters if we use the < symbol in LaTeX or a character reference to it. I mean, the result is the same, right? If so, why does is matter so much to you?

But fine. Someone already put the <s in the "propre" way. Happy?

Username5243 (talk) 03:03, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

I just followed mathematical traditional convention in LaTeX. For example, you might not care if I replace all occurences of $$<$$ by $$＜$$, $$f_{\alpha}$$ by $$\textrm{f}_α$$, and $$\sup$$ by $$sup$$, but they are kind of grammartical errors in LaTeX. If you think that we should correct grammatical errors in natural language, isn't it reasonable to correct grammatical errors in LaTeX? (To clarify, it was better for me only to revert the error on LaTeX, though.)
p-adic 03:14, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

To me, there's a big difference here.

The LaTeX case doesn't change the appearance of the article, but fixing the English grammar does. Nobody will be able to tell the difference in the LaTeX case, so what does it matter?

I'm not saying it's "wrong". I'm just saying that one form isn't any more "wrong" than the other.

Username5243 (talk) 10:49, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

Then to you, any sentences in comment-out tags, which are not visible unless we see the source code, is not wrong, right? The situation is the similar to the case where someone inserted non-sense sentences in comment-out tags.
If you are only interested in what is displayed, am I allowed to put non-sense sentences in comment-put tags for many irrelevant articles, to replace all occurence of $$\sup$$ by $$\textrm{sup}$$, inserting additional spaces right after all paragraphs, and so on? I am not certain why such a non-sense revision is appreciated. (Actually, the one who editted did so as well as fixing grammatical errors. Was the original description something wrong for the one? If it is not "any more wrong" for you, do you think that it is absolutely good for the one to revise the article without any arguments even if I have already written the reason why I reverted the inappropriate conversion? Are you seriously regarding writing "people on this site can't let go and love to bully those who are passionate about math" as appropriate information?
p-adic 12:48, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
Hey P-Bot. I wanted to say I understand your position on this, but that there is a good reason I made changes to the page. For one, I believed the wording could be better, and two, I used $$\texttrm{Lng}(a)$$ instead of $$L$$ because this "$$L$$" occured right after "We denote by Lng(a)∈N the length of a." So how are people (beginners in particular) supposed to know that $$L$$ is just shorthand?
The article was clearly written by someone who is very well-versed on N-primitive, which is why it isn't as easy to read for other people as it is for the person who wrote it, and therefore I felt my change made it ever so slightly simpler and easier to understand.
「inappropriate conversion? Are you seriously regarding writing『people on this site can't let go and love to bully those who are passionate about math』 as appropriate information?」
It's about the edit, not the edit summary. As long I don't namedrop a particular person or put swears in the edit summary none of that is being added to the article and shouldn't matter, objectively. Kim TheDylanJ (talk) 15:05, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
> wording
> L
Also, I am talking abut your specific revisions on inequalities and unconstructive revisions on spacings. Please read my comments. Why are they necessary? Is there something wrong? Why you repeated the conversion of the inequalities without any arguments even though they have already been reverted?
> It's about the edit, not the edit summary.
What is the difference? Who are the "people" in your context? If you seriously though "I will get banned for this constructive edit which fixes grammar and words the article better", then why did you edit in that way? Are you intensionally behaving in the way how you think that you will get banned?
p-adic 22:20, December 10, 2019 (UTC)
「What is the difference?"」
Well, the edit is like the hotdog and the edit summary is the package. You don't eat the package, you eat the hotdog. So too, no one really cares about the edit summary as long as it's not profane.
「Why are they necessary? Is there something wrong? Why you repeated the conversion of the inequalities without any arguments even though they have already been reverted?」
I don't remember making changes to the math part of things except for making $$L$$ more explicitly clear, but in any case I'd say the edit was overall helpful. So, I'm not writing another paragraph to defend an extremely minor thing. And you probably shouldn't either. Kim TheDylanJ (talk) 19:25, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
> So too, no one really cares about the edit summary as long as it's not profane.
You are wrong. They are many roles of the edit summary. Anyway, who are the "people" in your context? If you seriously though "I will get banned for this constructive edit which fixes grammar and words the article better", then why did you edit in that way? Are you intensionally behaving in the way how you think that you will get banned?
> I don't remember making changes to the math part of things except for making L more explicitly clear, but in any case I'd say the edit was overall helpful.
As I wrote above, please read my comments before replying "I don't remember". Or do you just want to be dishonest against me? You actually converted inequalities as if my formulae were bad. They are not constructive.
p-adic 22:57, December 11, 2019 (UTC)
My edit was objectively better in terms of grammar and wording.
「As I wrote above, please read my comments before replying "I don't remember". Or do you just want to be dishonest against me? You actually converted inequalities as if my formulae were bad. They are not constructive.」
K. Well, I don't want to irritate Username so I won't reply to this thread anymore. Do what you wish with the article, but if I see grammar errors I'm fixing them. Kim TheDylanJ (talk) 00:20, December 12, 2019 (UTC)
You honestly could not understand that I am talking about inequalities but not about grammer and wording, right...? Anyway, fixing grammer and wording is good, of course. At this point, I would like to thank you very much. (I am completely uncertain why you could not understand that I am talking about mathematical inequalities, though. Is this just a language barrier, i.e. the poverty of my expressions? At least, Username understood what I said, and hence it is time to stop it, as you state.)
p-adic 01:09, December 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to contact you. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 05:04, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

k

Username5243 (talk) 10:58, January 13, 2020 (UTC)

please check them again... Plain'N'Simple (talk) 08:02, January 17, 2020 (UTC)

Can you please check them more often? Having to declare "I've written a message to you" every time I write one, kinda defeats the whole purpose of having a private communication channel. Thank you.

EDIT TO ADD: This request is not due to any specific message I sent recently. I'm simply asking that you keep that channel of communications open. Okay? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 09:36, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

Plain'N'Simple (talk) 09:16, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

When I try to reply I'm getting "Some users couldn’t be added as they have disabled private message receipt." What should I do? Username5243 (talk) 10:34, April 30, 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Try again Now. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 10:54, April 30, 2020 (UTC)

## Messages from Mango523WNR

Mango523WNR (talk) 07:38, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

Mango523WNR (talk) 10:49, February 7, 2020 (UTC) https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/User_blog:Mango523WNR/My_profile_has_been_Updated

Mango523WNR (talk) 00:23, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

I'm Mango523WNR, thank you for you attention.

What did I literally just say?

Username5243 (talk) 00:32, February 10, 2020 (UTC)

## ????

Only source is a GWiki user page, and appears to have been made by the user in question?

You mean, what if the source I provided was a link from other website such as Github? Will this page not be deleted?

## Debut Notation numbers and my user page article

Well, first of all, thank you for editing my ultimate list by adding numbers to the list. Anyway, can you help me by editing Debut Notation numbers before turning into articles? Thanks. ARsygo (talk) 23:25, April 2, 2020 (UTC)

I might when I get the chance, but my main googology-related thing right now is analyzing BMS. I haven't posted it here yet (partly because I think it'll trigger P-bot via overuse of UNOCF, lol), but I'll try to when I have time. Username5243 (talk) 23:46, April 2, 2020 (UTC)
Then it is good just to formally define UNOCF :) We are looking forward to seeing your work.
p-adic 06:27, April 3, 2020 (UTC)

## Question

This article refers to a page named "AndréJoyce Fan Club". As the name of the webpage indicates, it does not look like a valid source. (More awfully, whenever I click text contents in the webpage, an extirnal page that looks halmful will be opened.) I would like to ask you, "Is a user allowed to refer to such a page as a source?"

p-adic 07:47, April 8, 2020 (UTC)

I just checked that page. Certain links on there kept popping up random links to "update flash player" (which I swear I just did not too long ago...) or download a "free PDF reader". They're either malware/scams or otherwise up to no good. Are there any other pages that use the "fan club" as a source? I will delete the offending article now. (Cloudy, if you want to move it to your archive, go ahead.) Username5243 (talk) 11:24, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
This "fan club" is a common source of numbers by Joyce Andre. Maybe almost all articles in this category refer to it as a source. For example, please check the following articles:
p-adic 12:27, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
I'm gonna ask Cloudy about what we should do. At the very least the "63" page isn't going, it's a policy that we have articles for numbers 0-99 - maybe take whatever Joyce info was on that page out. I'll see what Cloudy thinks. Username5243 (talk) 12:32, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
Right, I think that the article 63 should be kept, but the "source" (and the associated description based on it) should be removed. Also, I am afraid that there might be other articles outside the category, as the deleted page (Left bucket) was. Isn't there an admin tool to search all articles refering to that page? Since the default search box does not fully work, I cannot search all of them.
p-adic 12:40, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
If the current version of the source is problematic, we can use an archive link instead, such as https://web.archive.org/web/20191115073107/http://michaelhalm.tripod.com/id76.html. Also, you can use Special:LinkSearch to find pages that link to a certain web page or site. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:26, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
Then do you think that it can be still a valid source (if we replace it by the archive)? The page is not reliable because
1. It lists so many souces but includes no actual links. (Also, one of the source is "authors". Other sources are just the names of known games such as "football" and "shogi", which are irrelevant to the contents.)
2. The "TERMS" section includes random terms irrelavant to the page contents.
3. The pages includes several profane words.
4. The deleted number "Left Bucket" is not actually referred to as a large number in the archived page.
In my opinion, the archived page is not a valid source, and hence those should be removed from the main space.
p-adic 22:43, April 8, 2020 (UTC)
Well, is there no conclusion? Should I simply put deletion tags on all of them?
p-adic 07:41, April 12, 2020 (UTC)

## Question on Notability

Hi. Could you tell me whether those edits are notable for you?

Especially, the "Conversion" section looks nothing specific to the corresponding articles. (I note that these are just examples, and the same user has started to edit many articles in this way.) Thanks.

p-adic 07:07, April 17, 2020 (UTC)

## Request for protection

Can you protect some of the popular pages such as list of googolisms and Rayo's number so that only autoconfirmed users that can edit those pages? And also, those pages are also a target for vandalism since those pages are popular. ARsygo (talk) 05:40, May 1, 2020 (UTC)

## Ribark and Nama Naima

"Ribark" is a username he used to harass me personally a while back.

And "Nama Naima" is a user that you, yourself, agreed to be "obviously an Edwin Shade sockpuppet". Moreover, if you check his history, you'll see that his first comments were about Edwin Shade.

If Edwin wants to use a gazillion other sockpuppets for fully benign purposes, that's his business. You have no hope of catching all of these, anyway. But sockpuppets that were actively used to harass other people should be blocked. And the same goes for sockpuppets who were used to give an appearance of an "outside opinion" on the Edwin situation.

Seriously, there isn't one good reason why either these usernames should remain unblocked. So do your job, please.

Thank you. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 14:03, May 4, 2020 (UTC)

When did Ribark harass you? I can't remember. And "Nama Naima" is actually making googology stuff, not harassing anyone. I don't want have any "false positives" on here.
Also not every mildly annoying/suspicious user is probably, or even likely, Edwin Shade. I still doubt Patcail is Edwin, but he was still annoying on Discord so I decided to block him anyway. As for the guy who wrote the article aobut the DNA test? He's been on discord for a while too. He's repeatedly leaked his real name and where he lives (somewhere in Indonesia) and shown us a picture of himself, as well as revealing the personal information of some of his friends as well. doesn't seem Edwin-like to me.
I know you'll say "Edwin has disguised himself" before. Sure, that's true. But you can't just assume every new user is Edwin just because they seem slightly suspicious. Username5243 (talk) 14:58, May 4, 2020 (UTC)
I did not make this request about "every mildly annoying/suspicious user", nor did I mention Embi anywhere. Why are you exaggarating? I've mentioned two specific usernames: Ribark and Nama Naima (Patcail has nothing do with it. I have no idea if he is Edwin or not, nor do I particularly care).

With Ribark, I can't give you the proof because that would involve a bit of personal information about myself. You'll just have to accept my word that it happened. I may be paranoid, but I'm not a liar.

As for Nama Naima - check his history. First, an Edwin-related comment (which got him blocked and rightly so). Then tons of Edwin-related stuff on his talk page. Then he calls his notation "The Egg Shell Function" (which is about as subtle a hint as the "Stable Genius" thing). Then he takes an entire long paragraph to say that "Plain's blog is a mess".

Moreover, the guy has been using a very specific punctuation style that only Edwin uses. I've already told you about that (if you want the details, reread the relevant correspondence in your PM archive. I'm not going to devulge it here for obvious reasons). And shall I mention your response? You said, and I quote:

"I officially started blocking anyone that happened to show up and make a post about Edwin, regardless of what it said. Because, come on, what other kinds of new user would feel the need to mention Edwin in one of their first contributions?"

That is 100% correct. And to this I will add: What other kind of new user would feel the need to publish a long rant about me - a person he hardly knows?

This guy is Edwin. Plain and simple (no pun intended). The fact that he has done some useful googology in the meanwhile is irelevant.
By the way:

While you are right that "not every mildly annoying/suspicious user is probably, or even likely, Edwin Shade", you also have the habit of not taking me seriously even when I present you with evidence. You never actually consider what I'm saying, and instead you patronize me as if I'm some paranoid child.

Please stop doing this. The situation is difficult enough without you showing me this kind of contempt. Besides, this kind of behavior plays straight into Edwin's hands. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 17:02, May 4, 2020 (UTC)
Okay, fine. If you say so, those users are getting blocked. Username5243 (talk) 17:27, May 4, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 17:30, May 4, 2020 (UTC)
Quick update: "Nama Naima" has joined the Discord to try to get unblocked. (I turned off access to his talk page.) It probably isn't going to work, but we'll see what the admins over there do about it. Username5243 (talk) 19:38, May 4, 2020 (UTC)
What do the admins on the Discord have to do with the wiki?
As long as it doesn't affect the wiki directly, I don't particularly care what's going on the Discord. Last time I checked (which was a very long time ago), that place was swarming with Edwinpuppets anyway. Adding another one isn't going to make much of a difference. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 20:33, May 4, 2020 (UTC)

## Private contact - starting a new.

Is there a way to contact you discretely? I mean, a place which you're in the habit of checking messages regularly (at least once a day)?

The fact that this wiki doesn't have a private messaging system is a huge flaw, especially during the current sensitive situation.

The PM option we've tried up until now is obviously not working. I am not sure if this is because of the inconvinience of checking a website you're not used to check, or because you've actively been avoiding my messages.

If it's the former reason, then please suggest an alternative that would be more convinient to you.

And if it's the latter, then I respectfully ask you to stop doing that. We're starting a new page, remember? Besides, this wiki cannot afford this kind of pettiness right now. We need to learn to work together and be efficient, and put whatever personal differences we have aside, alright?

Either way, let's get this done.

Respectfully yours, Plain'N'Simple (talk) 15:09, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I'm just not used to checking that site, I'll note down to do that more often now. I don't know what else to do. (You've ruled out the Discord, and the xkcd forums have been shut down for a long while - I would've selected there otherwise.) Or...wait I check the higher dimensions forum (hi.gher.space/forum/) regularly enough, that works too. Username5243 (talk) 15:42, May 5, 2020 (UTC)
You shouldn't have mentioned the site you're proposing in public.
If you have any other suggestions, please PM them to me at the usual place (I understand this isn't convinient to you, but it is only temporary) Plain'N'Simple (talk) 16:57, May 5, 2020 (UTC)

## Question on a setting of this wiki

A Japanese Googology Wiki user says that he is not able to edit his profile page in this wiki or to write a new blog post in this wiki. Is there a restriction of a user right if his account is first created at another wiki?

p-adic 03:30, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the account was created. What matters is the age of the account. You need to wait a few day after registering, before you can do anything here. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 08:37, May 7, 2020 (UTC)
It makes sense. Thank you!
p-adic 08:40, May 7, 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, that was put in place here as an attempt to stop the trolls. (I'm not sure how effective that actually was...) Username5243 (talk) 10:16, May 7, 2020 (UTC)
I see. Thank you.
p-adic 10:18, May 7, 2020 (UTC)

## Vandal

Hello, there is a vandal vandalising this wiki and requires immediate attention: Kill Holo Manga. ~ (talk) 1:29, May 08, 2020 (UTC)

## Notability Guideline

I would like to ask you and other experts to fix a notability guideline. We have three examples:

1. Numbers by Garrett Wilkinson
2. Numbers by Andre Joyce
3. Copy Array Notation

The first two examples have several arguments on your talk page and its talk page. The third example is new. The common issue is that the articles refer to "sources" which are just created in order to be referred as sources. In that case, we need to consider the notability, right? I hope some of admins or members of the panel with fix a reasonable guideline. Thank you.

p-adic 04:05, May 8, 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree this needs to be fiixed. How do we know what's "notable" and what's not? We can't just say, for example, that it has to have been around for a certain amount of time, because then people won't get their newer stuff on the wiki. And there's stuff (Plain'N'Simple's letter notation stands out here) that is only in blogs but I feel should be mentioned in the main space.
It really is a tricky problem: How do we establish notability guidelines that limit what is on the wiki while at the same time intending to be comprehensive? Username5243 (talk) 00:11, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
One solution is to ask the panel members to give a mild guideline afer a discussion involing any members in this community. Another direction is to set an additional restriction on "sources". The current rule requires the reliability of a source. But suppose that it is used as a source of an number whose creator is unspecified, but is not peer-reviewed. It is doubtless that it is not a reliable source, even if the description is fortunately correct. For example, a manuscript X which is not peer-reviewed can be a reliable source of an article Y on a number N only when X is not freely changed, Y refers to a specific creator of N, and the creator of N admits X as a source of N. Many of "made-up" articles do not refer to the original creator. (It means that if N does not have a specific creator such as million, a manuscript can never be a source unless it is peer-reviewed.) Since many of "made-up" articles do not refer to the creators, I believe that this restriction helps us to find "suspicious" articles. As a conclusion, how about requiring a "notable" article to satisfy either one of the following?
1. It has a peer-reviewed source.
2. It clarifies the creator of a new number, and has a source showing that it is true.
Of course, the source in the second condition should satisfy the existing restrictions. (Say, wikipedia is not a source.)
p-adic 01:15, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we already agree that blog posts are just as good as sources as external website? Or was that decision reversed?

The real problem is that - in the current situaiton - people are actually invited to create garbage and then add it to the wiki. The rules actually allow it. I don't really see how the examples you've given are any worse then what we usually allow.

As for the wiki being "comprehensive"... well, that's a bit problematic when there are an infinity of numbers, isn't it? Plain'N'Simple (talk) 08:49, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
> Didn't we already agree that blog posts are just as good as sources as external website?
Yes. A blog post is allowed to be the first source of a "notable" article only when it is actually the first source or an alternative of it, and the content is regarded as significant through the voting and the decision by members in the panel. The issue above is different from this topic. There are several users who create articles which refer to "sources" which are created only in order to refer to as sources. While articles based on blogposts need a voting and a decision by the panel, the current rule does not prohibit such a "nearly-made-up" article, whose "source" is less reliable than a blog post.
p-adic 09:21, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
Ah. I wasn't aware that there's a difference in policy between blog posts and external self-made sources. There shouldn't be one, really. An external personal website is no different than a blog post. Treat them both completely equally, and the problem will go away. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 09:51, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
Right. I agree with it.
p-adic 10:00, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
Anyway, we have another new example: Googolv. The source looks like a variant of Andre Joyce's fan club. I think that it is better to have a rule that an article should include the information of a creator of the number unless it has a peer-reviwed source in order to easily find suspicious articles.
p-adic 12:09, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
The number googolv even is not mentioned on the page the article refers to. The page contains only description of naming system, which possibly forms the name “googolv” for 110^55. Who coined namely googolv is indefined.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 12:48, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
I know, as I clarified so in the summary of my edit of the article. The article was originally created by Googleaarex, and was deleted seven years ago according to the delete log. If nobody has coined it, then it is kind of a made-up article, isn't it? Or should we allow any name of a number by a naming system?
p-adic 13:09, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
If we allow articles for any name that some guy can form using some naming system, then the amount of such articles may be too large. Let's limit ourselves to the names mentioned by the author of the system.--Denis Maksudov (talk) 14:14, May 11, 2020 (UTC)
It sounds quite reasonable.
p-adic 14:17, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

## Spam?

A user started to add articles to a deleted category, and also made a meaningless edit in my talk page. Could you give the guy a warning not to make meaningless edits? Thanks.

p-adic 22:32, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

Also, is this a spam? I do not understand what this edit means.

p-adic 23:45, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

This new user is either an impersonate account or an abused multiple account of JakeCampbell19 because of the non-trivial similarity of theuser name. The account created a spam article.

p-adic 23:01, May 28, 2020 (UTC)

And also, don't forget the Class 3 list page, where the {{Lynz}} has been modified. ARsygo (talk) 05:50, May 29, 2020 (UTC)

And also, I checked on my page, there's also another spam (4th page of my fakelist). Can you revert it? ARsygo (talk) 13:07, May 29, 2020 (UTC)

The Jake account was definitely a sockpuppet, the last time he messed with Lynz too. I'll look at the others though. Username5243 (talk) 13:12, May 29, 2020 (UTC)

@ARsygo
Normal users can revert edits. For example, I reverted it for you.
p-adic 13:15, May 29, 2020 (UTC)

## Violation to Term of Use

Please see this page. This is the third time when the OP asks other users personal informations on a user. It violates term of use of FANDOM.

p-adic 23:10, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

Indeed.

Ehm Ehm... Ehm Plain'N'Simple (talk) 18:33, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

OmegaAcidz. Another sockpuppet. Can you ban him?

Awesomeadndy (talk) 04:05, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I was sleeping. Seems Cloudy took care of it. Username5243 (talk) 10:07, July 11, 2020 (UTC)

First he spams his own blog posts with replies.

Then he writes this "gem":

Please look at what he wrote to me in the comment section there too.

Can you please tell him to cut this out? Because we don't this kind of cr*p on the wiki right now.

Thank you Plain'N'Simple (talk) 06:41, September 1, 2020 (UTC)

## Question

Can I create a page whose title is Japanese? For example, I would like to create an article on a number whose name is given in Japanese letters. Thank you.

p-adic 15:11, September 1, 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Username5243 is busy with college at the moment. Meanwhile, my own unofficial suggestion is that you write the Japanese title with English letters.
You can also create a pure-Japanese title which will serve as a redirect to the page mentioned above.
(if the admins don't like it, they can always undo your edits. But I don't think this is going to be  a problem) Plain'N'Simple (talk) 16:38, September 2, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you think that it is also acceptable if I do the opposite, i.e. if I create a pure-Japanese title as a main article and an unofficial Japense title with English letters as a redirect? (Functionally it does not work differently. i would like to do this because the creator does not like others to change the original pure-Japanese name. Generally, many of us like the combination of the pronunciation and the shape, which will be broken when it will be translated.)
p-adic 22:09, September 2, 2020 (UTC)
It's not functionally equivalent. I think it is important that the title that heads the actual article is readable for everyone.
I also took the time to check how it was done the other Japanese-named numbers. The title of the main article is in English letters, but the original Japanese spelling (and meaning) is also given immediately at the beginning of the article.
For an example, see here:
https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/無量大數
I think this is a reasonable compromise. At the very least, there's an actual precedent for doing it in this way. Plain'N'Simple (talk) 22:59, September 2, 2020 (UTC)
I see. Thank you.
p-adic 23:38, September 2, 2020 (UTC)

## Spam

Nirvana Supermind is continuing to refer to the user's own web site without any valid links to first sources as a source of many articles. The user said that the web site is just a collection of numbers in other wikis, and hence it cannot be a reliable source. Although I explained that the web site is kind of a "made-up" source, the user is ignoring it and does not stop adding to articles a link to the web site as a valid source. The user also created an article which only has one "source", i.e. a link to the made-up web site. Could you please tell the user to stop the inappropriate attitude? If we allow the web site, which just collect numbers from other wikis, as a valid source, then it is essentially same as allowing other wikis as valid sources. I note that the user prefers unsourced contents, as the user suggested to create an unsourced wiki similar to GOOGOLOGY FOR EVERYONE here, and hence this is perhaps an intentional violaion to the policy. Thank you.

p-adic 23:09, September 8, 2020 (UTC)

## Vandalism

Please block quickly Reactionary Rosen. I don't think you need any reasons, just look at the recent activity list or the main page. Yabuszko (talk) 18:13, October 2, 2020 (UTC)

## Protection

I recently noticed that you protected the pages Greagol regiment, Gigangol regiment, and Googology. You protected the pages because you thought they received excessive vandalism. It may be useful to pe-protect those pages with semi-protection instead. {{SUBST:User|WikiOfEverything}} 18:01, October 3, 2020 (UTC)

## Another day, another vandalism

It looks like a user named "Poll Changer 79" vandalized this wiki. Can you block it and delete the NSFW-related images as well as edit or delete some of the posts sent by it?

ARsygo (talk) 10:26, October 6, 2020 (UTC)

## MathJax Guideline

You might notice that the system update today causes an issue on MathJax. Since the system is still updating, the issue might be automatically fixed. Do you have any official suggestion as an admin? (I think that it is better for us to wait days until the updating will be completed, but several users started to replacing MathJax by math tag.)

p-adic 12:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

## Blog post

Look, do I need a chance?

## /* Blog post */ new section

Look, do I need a chance? XiTetrateiX (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there proof that you're LuxkyLuxius instead of a troll? C7X (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hmm I don't have any, because I can't go on my main account and tell you, because I am permabanned.

## (NOTICE) Luxius wants to talk with you.

Hello, As you may know, this account is just an Edwin move sock-puppet thing. You might ban me anyways, but read my blog post for more info. ❤︎ XiTetrateiX (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC) AKA LuckyLuxius

## Problems with editing

I can't edit C7X (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's fine for blog posts but editing this page takes a long time to save

## On the harassing user

You blocked a vandalist "WikiOfEverything", who awfully harassed other users. But C7X pointed out that he or she might have created a new account: BadUser5656. I am not certain whether he or she is actually a sockpappet or not, and hence could you block the original IP of WikiOfEverything? (If BadUser5656 is irrelevant to WikiOfEverything, then the blocking of the IP has nothing to do with him or her, while the user is somewhy very interested in the blocking of the IP as we can see in his talk page.)

I note several points:

1. BadUser5656's attitude is completely the same as WikiOfEverything. (Just putting deletion tags and creating unnecessary redirects, e.g. 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.)
2. WikiOfEverything gave the admin's right of his wiki to BadUser5656 right around the day of the block.
3. As WikiOfEverything vandalised several pages by igoring all past arguments, BadUser5656 did several violations against the site policy:
1. He or she repeated to mark Ε₀‎‎ as a candidate of deletion because he or she insists that Pohlers' book cannot be a source, while it is one of the most famous standard textbooks.
2. He or she repeated to mark Iota function as a candidate of deletion because it is ill-defined, while I have explained that the ill-definedness cannot be a reason for deletion.
3. He or she dishonestly blames admins, e.g. you, in his profile page.

I know that you are busy now, but I appreciate if you block the original IP of WikiOfEverything and warn BadUser5656. Thank you. p-adic 03:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

## A user repeating to create unsourced cocntents

Hi. Trakeplex is creating articles on his or her own numbers by referring to external links as sources, although they do not include his or her numbers. I asked the user to stop to add unsourced contents several times, but he or she does not stop. For example, he or she added his or her numbers to the template on Bowers' illion numbers today. Could you warn him or her to stop such attitudes, because he or she does not listen to other users? Thank you.

p-adic 01:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As I wrote above, the user is continuing to create fake articles on his or her own number without precise sources even after other users warned. (The user intentionally refers to an irrelevant link as a source.) Here is a list of the user's fake articles:

p-adic 01:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

## Hey

You are alive! XiTetrateiX (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC) (Luxius) Just so you know, you have the mentality of a state-‌‌‌ω turing machine with ξ-0 symbols.

## /* Hey */ new section

You are alive! XiTetrateiX (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC) (Luxius) Just so you know, you have the mentality of a state-‌‌‌ω turing machine with ξ-0 symbols. Have a nice day!

## Repeated Vandalism

User:Ivan Stepanov created an unsourced article on his or her number Treeillion, and is repeating to remove the deletion tags. Moreover, he or she added his or her article to the categories for main articles, while it is not allowed. Please warn the user, because he or she always ignores other users. Also, please delete his or her blog post in order to remove it from the categories. Thank you.

p-adic 09:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The user is continuing to vandalising articles. Could you deal with it?

p-adic 11:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition, could you delete the user's blog post, because the user added it to the categories for main articles? Thank you.

p-adic 12:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

## Possible Vandalism?

C7X pointed out that a new user Giggolstack behaves quite similarly to the blocked user WikiOfEverything (which has a blocked sockpuppet BadUser5656). The point is:

1. The user randomly puts the deltion tag and remove descripions. (For example, the user removed a sourced content by saying "Not in the source".)
2. The user does not listen to comments or summaries by others at talk pages. Instead, the user edited a comment by C7X in a talk page without specifying a reason.

I know that you are busy, but I appreciate if you warn the user. (If the user is simply a new user, then it is good to know rules, too.) I asked C7X to inform you of this at somewhere else, because you might not check this comment. Sorry for the multiple request. Thank you.

p-adic 03:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

## P進大好きbot

Hello Username5243. Could you please block a vandal P進大好きbot? He repeatedly reverts my edits without explaining why in the edit summary. Many of them removing deletion tags from unsourced articles. I have reverted his edits explaining that Googology Wiki doesn't allow unsourced content, but then he ignores my messages and removes the deletion tag again. Giggolstack (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

First, we (I, C7X, ARsygo, and Nirvana Supermind) sincerely warned the user Giggolstack to stop the inconstructible edits, and explained alternative ways to contribute in this wiki. However, the user ignored them all, and is continuing the attitude.

One awful thing is that the user did two things: Removing sourced contents, and also removing unsourced contents. So in order to check the validity of the edits, we should check all the contents in the cited sources. In that case, we should pay much more time than the vandalist. So I warned the user at the user's talk page, proposed Cloudy to give an admin right to C7X and ARsygo, and explained how to solve the issue to C7X and ARsygo at their talk pages, i.e. to revert all edits by the vandalist instead checking the validity of all edits. As I and C7X have already asked you, I hope you to deal with the user. Thank you.

p-adic 01:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

## Will you make larger numbers?

Oh, hi! I need larger numbers than wekulinoogol. Please make them for all of us to see. Thank you!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seangem1242 (talkcontribs)