Interesting IRC conversation

[20:34] <rabb2t[pc]> really, nobody even cares about seeing the most important page of the wiki (http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_googologisms) with ill-defined numbers and even ill-defined scale
[20:35] <cookiefonster> well
[20:35] <cookiefonster> the thing is
[20:35] <Wojomobile> Well, as long as no one has a good idea on what to do, I'm not going to do anything
[20:35] <cookiefonster> its hard to agree on a good solution there
[20:36] <rabb2t[pc]> remove ill-defined numbers from the list first
[20:36] <rabb2t[pc]> for the scale, keep the well-defined part, then put all computable numbers bigger in a section "Beyond Tetrationnal Arrays"
[20:36] <rabb2t[pc]> it already would be better
[20:39] <rabb2t[pc]> anybody?
[20:39] <rabb2t[pc]> damn
[20:41] == alemagno12 [be7c694d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.190.124.105.77] has joined ##googology
[20:41] <alemagno12> HIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
[20:43] <rabb2t[pc]> even the pages about BEAF doesn't make sense: "list of googological functions" says L-space would have been about SVO, while the Bukuwaha page gives an approximation of the number which is... Psi(Psi_I(I^I^w)) - this is nowhere true in any reasonable interpretation of BEAF beyond tetra. arrays!
[20:43] <rabb2t[pc]> hey alemagno12
[20:45] <rabb2t[pc]> alemagno12: you know that BEAF is ill-defined beyond tetrationnal arrays? why do you think of that: the most important page of the wiki, the list of googologisms, includes ill-defined numbers and even has an ill-defined scale!
[20:45] <rabb2t[pc]> nobody replied to my edit on the talk page of the ggs. list so I guess nobody really cares of finding an alternative to that
[20:47] <rabb2t[pc]> (for the previous message, the approximation was f_(Psi(Psi_I(I^I^w)))(100), sorry)
[20:49] <rabb2t[pc]> ...
[20:50] <rabb2t[pc]> are you still alive...
[20:50] <cookiefonster> long time no see alemagno
[20:55] <Wojomobile> Sorry, I died for few minutes
[20:56] <Wojomobile> But I don't have anything to say anyways
[20:56] <Wojomobile> So it doesn't matter
[20:56] <Wojomobile> And hey Magno
[20:56] <rabb2t[pc]> I feel like nothing is going to be done
[20:57] <Wojomobile> Probably not
[20:57] <rabb2t[pc]> it's lame
[20:57] <Wojomobile> I would agree to remove all ill-defined BEAF numbers
[20:57] <rabb2t[pc]> oh nice
[20:58] <rabb2t[pc]> for the scale, just put "Beyond Tetrationnal Arrays"
[20:58] <rabb2t[pc]> until we find a better solution
[20:58] <Wojomobile> And thinking now there isn't really that large need to have any partition of the list, is there?
[20:58] <rabb2t[pc]> not that much
[20:58] <Wojomobile> Brb, watching CSI
[20:59] <rabb2t[pc]> but it looks more "structured"
[20:59] <rabb2t[pc]> so, ca I remove these numbers?
[20:59] <rabb2t[pc]> can*
[20:59] <alemagno12> Oh hi
[20:59] <cookiefonster> its a bit of a far move
[20:59] <rabb2t[pc]> hey alemagno12
[20:59] <cookiefonster> bowers has stated his intent on how big some of his googolisms are
[20:59] <cookiefonster> e.g. pentational arrays = gamma-0, hexationals = phi(2,0,0)
[21:00] <rabb2t[pc]> these are still undefined
[21:00] <rabb2t[pc]> but we could make a special section for them
[21:00] <alemagno12> hmph
[21:00] <cookiefonster> thatd be kinda awkward imo
[21:00] <rabb2t[pc]> we can't let ill-defined number with the others
[21:01] <rabb2t[pc]> at least make visitors know that they are ill-defined
[21:01] <rabb2t[pc]> not everybody who comes on the wiki knows that
[21:02] <Anonycat> define the Shiftyplex, equal to 10^(rnd()/rnd())
[21:03] <alemagno12> some people have tried to make a formal definition of arrays larger than tetrational
[21:04] <rabb2t[pc]> I know but it's not Bower's work
[21:04] <rabb2t[pc]> so not "BEAF"
[21:04] <cookiefonster> bowers' word of god regarding some of his numbers' size is something reasonable to rely on
[21:04] <cookiefonster> like, kungulus ~ f_gamma-0(100)
[21:04] <alemagno12> probably he will define it one day (if he doesn't die and if he has enough time to work on his website because he rarely updates it)
[21:05] <rabb2t[pc]> we could say that for example "Goshomity is bigger than [insert other googologism] in any reasonable interpretation of BEAF beyond tetrationnal arrays"
[21:05] <rabb2t[pc]> sounds good
[21:06] <rabb2t[pc]> but that way we can't compare with BIGG for example, depending on the interpretation it even could be bigger than meameamealokkapoowa oompa
[21:06] <rabb2t[pc]> I propose to make a special section for those numbers :V
[21:10] <Wojomobile> I've realized I've seen that episode of CSI :x
[21:11] <rabb2t[pc]> "CSI"?
[21:12] <Wojomobile> Crime scene investigation, TV series
[21:13] <rabb2t[pc]> ok
[21:13] <rabb2t[pc]> cookiefonster: what do you think of making a special section for those numbers
[21:18] <Wojomobile> How about making a whole new article for them?
[21:18] <alemagno12> Actually, we can compare BEAF with other notations if we use BEAF's complete definition, not Bower's definition. I mean, Bowers defined it very informally, but, that doesn't mean we can't work more complete definitions using other definitions.
[21:18] <Wojomobile> "List of BEAF numbers"
[21:19] <rabb2t[pc]> yeah
[21:19] <Wojomobile> There is no complete definition of BEAF existing
[21:21] <rabb2t[pc]> so what do we do this day? we already create the article?
[21:22] <Wojomobile> Someone should put this to the talk page
[21:23] <Wojomobile> And definitely add a poll "is that a good idea"
[21:23] <Wojomobile> So that we can get community's voice without waiting for everyone posting a reply on the page
[21:23] <rabb2t[pc]> I copy the whole conversation to a blog so they will see the whole thing. on the talk page we just explain what we decided and put the poll
[21:24] <rabb2t[pc]> ok?
[21:24] <Wojomobile> Won't pastebin be a better idea?
[21:24] <rabb2t[pc]> true
[21:24] <Wojomobile> Won't take so much space on the page