conversation with louis epstein

Louis Epstein <le@main.put.com>
Jan 9

to hedrondude, m.bird44, hudelson, peter, novaloka, actaeus, conway, fran6, gerard, googillion, mrob27, mrgamestore, mrinfinity, mrob, rich, rowlett, susan.stepney, totheralistair, wordways, me, cloudy5939, aaronson, sbiissaibian
Honestly,I thought that once I got the long-contemplated Epstein Number
system into a public text I'd be able to nominate one and wait for any
proof that any calculatable number was bigger.

But,to some extent provoked by one of the wiki-kids disrespecting my
obvious statement that his pet BIG FOOT he calls the largest named
number would clearly be smaller than the BIGG FOOT created by substituting
the BIGG (Lawrence Hollom's pride and joy,culmination of a system he
claims leaves the Bowers meameamealokkapoowa oompa in the dust at an
early stage) for the meager quantities in his initial formula,I have
gone onward.

Having created a function that throws up "nominees" by the
Epstein-Number-Load,I have a new "Actual Nominee" at
http://www.put.com/A/alnumb.html (start at
http://www.put.com/A/bignumb.html to understand everything).

Again...can anyone show that any comparably calculatable number is bigger?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Cookie Fonster <cookiefonster99@gmail.com>
Jan 10

to Louis
The deal with BIGG FOOT is that it can't be honored as a contender to BIG FOOT because it's a naive extension to the number, merely taking the same number but plugging different values into the function; it doesn't bring out something new in googology. The FOOT function, on the other hand, actually is a function that's separate from Rayo's function and uses a significantly augmented set theory system.

Cookie Fonster <cookiefonster99@gmail.com>
Jan 10

to Wojtek


Louis Epstein
Jan 10

to me

Never discount "standing on the shoulders of giants"...it worked
for Newton.And it's how my popble etc. work.

If someone kneecaps his own function by under-loading it,
he deserves to be called out on it.Since FOOT is an uncomputable
I don't consider it qualified to compete with my Nominee no matter
how BIGG it gets anyway.

If the penguin wants to graduate from First- to BIGG-Order Oodle Theory,
he can give me the BOOT,but as it is I think he's being childish.


Cookie Fonster <cookiefonster99@gmail.com>
Jan 10

to Louis
You clearly don't understand how googology works. Standing on the shoulders of giants is not a good thing to do in googology. Googology isn't just about making the biggest number you can, it's about finding the best ways to make big numbers. FOOT is a specific way to make large numbers, and BIG FOOT is just an example number used to derive a record-holding large number out of FOOT. BIGG FOOT is just another number that doesn't bring anything newly insightful into googology. Plugging large numbers into existing powerful functions has been done so many times that it's not the least bit original.

You should give this article by Sbiis Saibian a read. It goes in depth about the sins of googology and why they're bad, especially the thing you're doing.


Louis Epstein
Jan 10

to me
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016, Cookie Fonster wrote:

> You clearly don't understand how googology works.

For starters,I absolutely despise the term "googology".
If there is one large number that deserves to be completely
forgotten and ignored,it is little Milton's misnaming of
ten sexdecilliards.

Have you read my webpages from http://www.put.com/A/bignumb.html
onward?

> Standing on the shoulders of giants is not a good thing to do in
> googology. Googology isn't just about making the biggest number you
> can, it's about finding the best ways to make big numbers.

And reinventing the wheel is not the best way.
Everyone uses building blocks.
Exponents and factorials have been around before any of us.

> FOOT is a specific way to make large numbers, and BIG
> FOOT is just an example number used to derive a record-holding large number
> out of FOOT.

I would say that BIG FOOT is a weak example that would be better served
by BIGG FOOT.

> BIGG FOOT is just another number that doesn't bring anything
> newly insightful into googology. Plugging large numbers into existing
> powerful functions has been done so many times that it's not the least bit
> original.

Since it relates to an uncomputable,I don't really care...I am
interested in getting bigger than BIGG,but BIGG FOOT is just a
casual reference that the respective names beg to be coined.

> You should give this article by Sbiis Saibian
> <http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Sbiis_Saibian/Introduction_to_Googology>
> a read. It goes in depth about the sins of googology and why they're bad,
> especially the thing you're doing.

I get that your clique has its way of doing things,
but that doesn't make your numbers any bigger.
I've been naming giant numbers since before many of you were born,
and I tried contributing to and got kicked out of your site in 2010.


Cookie Fonster <cookiefonster99@gmail.com>
Jan 10

to Louis
Oh come on. Just read Sbiis's article. It's not "our clique's way of doing things" as if it's some gang's cryptic giggly secret language nobody else understands. It's the proper way to make large numbers.

And if you want to build off an existing function, you need to make a function that seriously shoots beyond it. Iterating that function over and over again and iterating that or whatever won't cut it, you need to get further into the system and make serious improvement or additions to its inner workings.


Cookie Fonster <cookiefonster99@gmail.com>
Jan 10

to Louis
And BIGG FOOT is an OK number with a funny name, as long as you don't try and tout it as a record holder.


Louis Epstein
Jan 10

to me
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016, Cookie Fonster wrote:

> Oh come on. Just read Sbiis's article. It's not "our clique's way of doing
> things" as if it's some gang's cryptic giggly secret language nobody else
> understands. It's the proper way to make large numbers.

I READ the article.Which pretty much makes clear it's a
"club rule" for the wiki.

> And if you want to build off an existing function, you need to make a
> function that seriously shoots beyond it. Iterating that function over and
> over again and iterating that or whatever won't cut it, you need to get
> further into the system and make serious improvement or additions to its
> inner workings.

Bowers reacted favorably to the popble,which is good enough for me.
And each of my functions builds on previous ones.

So have you read my pages or measured my numbers against others?

(I am actually planning to go far beyond the current "Nominee",
devising more layers of iterations).


Cookie Fonster <cookiefonster99@gmail.com>
Jan 10

to Louis
Wait did Bowers respond to your email?? Can you quote what he said?


Louis Epstein
Jan 10

to me
On Sun, 10 Jan 2016, Cookie Fonster wrote:

> Wait did Bowers respond to your email?? Can you quote what he said?

Not to my recent group email...to a past email,he said,as I quoted
on my site,that 2 popbled easily beats a gongulus.
I can look at my old mail files.