Googology Wiki
Advertisement
Googology Wiki

Here is the place for voting. See Googology Wiki:Policy#Voting for general rules.

User_blog:P進大好きbot/First_Order_Theory_beyond_Higher_Order_Set_Theory

Please, tell me what do you think about adding it to the mainspace. I think we can at least mention it in the largest valid googologism. I appreciate anyone to vote for it. — Best regards, Triakula 13:02, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

It is hard for me to review and judge the validity of the definition, but I vote yes for adding it to the mainspace as it appears to be original and strong. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:19, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the vote. I couldn't say whether it is well-defined either, but since nobody in our community can disprove that it is the number which is defined by the strongest paradigm, possibly it should take this place. — Best regards, Triakula 14:00, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, even if the number isn't well-defined, it doesn't necessarily mean there should not be an article about it. There are articles about ill-defined numbers like BIG FOOT and Little Bigeddon. Rpakr (talk) 13:03, February 19, 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and it only reinforces the point that the article about Large Number Garden Number should be created. — Best regards, Triakula 15:18, February 19, 2020 (UTC)
I agree, we need an article about "the number from the large numbers garden" and about all this theory in the mainspace, since the number is a strong candidate for title of largest valid googologism (however, if no one can verify, whether the number is well-defined, then this fact should also be noted in the article). --Denis Maksudov (talk) 20:52, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. There were times when Little Bigeddon and BIG FOOT have been considered the largest until P進大好きbot found mistakes in the definitions (though I think that only a small part of googologists understand the reasonings). Maybe somebody ever will find the mistakes in Large Number Garden Number (see comments in the blog post for the name), but until we don't have an explicit reasoning, I think it deserves to be considered the largest. — Best regards, Triakula 07:21, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, should we also add the similar googologism to the second place of the largest valid googologism? — Best regards, Triakula 09:27, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

Since the work won the voting system and members of the panel are not against it, I'm going to add it to the mainspace. — Best regards, Triakula 08:35, February 25, 2020 (UTC)


Thank you!

p-adic 09:27, February 25, 2020 (UTC)

User:Wythagoras/Dollar function

Because this function has been relatively important to googology over time, and is used on many pages, I propose addition to the mainspace. C7X (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we should have an article about Dollar function --Denis Maksudov
Before judging the validity, I propose to solve known issues which have already pointed out here. Since the argument will be long, I hope that we will discuss it at the page.
p-adic 00:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I missed your message.--Denis Maksudov
Please never mind it.
p-adic 14:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Now we have solved the issue in Talk:Dollar_function. To summarise, we obtained a direction: to clarify problems on the original source. In that case, I propose that it is good to note for readers' convenience that the source is the first but non-peer-reviewed source, and hence is not so reliable as other sources in the usual article.

p-adic 01:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


@The panel members

Since the period for voting finished, we should pass this to the panel members. If you think that the discussion has been fully given and we should allow this blog post as the valid first source of a new arctile due to the discussion, then please accept the proposal. Otherwise, please reject the proposal.

p-adic 08:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I accept the proposal. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 06:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 09:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I made the page. Dollar function. Actually I once created the page and Whytagoras stopped it for the rule at that time. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 16:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I expanded the contents, following the proposal to include known problems.
p-adic 01:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Deedlit’ blogpost

In googological society Deedlit’ system of fundamental sequences was the first attempt to define fundamental sequences for functions, collapsing higher cardinalities (2013). It was important for googology and I propose to add this system in the mainspace’s article List of systems of fundamental sequences --Denis Maksudov

I agree with the significance, but the original source is not precisely written. For example, the FS for non-additive principal ordinal is ill-defined exactly by the same reason as the one explained in List of systems of fundamental sequences#Common misconception as a typical failure. Is there any solution? For example, could we ask Deedlit to fix all issues?
In my opinion, your works on Buchholz's function and Extended Buchholz's function is much more appropriate to be dealt with the first "succesful" trial to define FSs for OCFs. Your works are precisely written, are commonly used in googology (especially the most commonly used in Japanese googology), and have an external source. Isn't it sufficient to list your works instead of Deedlit's work?
p-adic 14:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The rule which assign FS for non-additive principal ordinals seems correct:
If α=α_1+…+α_m then cof(α)=cof(α_m) and α[η]=α_1+…+α_m[η], where α_i are principal ordinals, α_1 ⩾… ⩾α_m
I see problems with normal form, since Deedlit doesn’t require α∈C(ν, α ,ϑ ν(α)). We can ask Deedlit to fix the problem, but he has been inactive for over a year.
Also can we write our own definition of normal form and point out that it was not taken from original post. From Deedlit’s post we will take only definition of ϑ-function and rules for assignation of FS.
> Isn't it sufficient to list your works instead of Deedlit's work?
Currently 6/9 sources are pages of my site. It is desirable that the article contains the works of as many different authors as possible. We also should write about Buchholz’s Uniform approach, but may be it is better to put it in separate article about norm functions.
--Denis Maksudov
> If α=α_1+…+α_m then cof(α)=cof(α_m) and α[η]=α_1+…+α_m[η], where α_i are principal ordinals, α_1 ⩾… ⩾α_m
Which page are you referring to? I was mentioning to this section, which does not require "α_i are principal ordinals, α_1 ⩾… ⩾α_m".
> Also can we write our own definition of normal form and point out that it was not taken from original post. From Deedlit’s post we will take only definition of ϑ-function and rules for assignation of FS.
It is good, if we calrify the issues in the original definition.
> Currently 6/9 sources are pages of my site. It is desirable that the article contains the works of as many different authors as possible.
I agree with it, as long as the sources are good. My point was the issues on the blog post. If we clearly clarify the problems in the source, then it is ok for me. (Maybe it is good to clarify that the original blog post is the first but non-peer-reviewed source and hence is not so reliable as other sources.)
> We also should write about Buchholz’s Uniform approach, but may be it is better to put it in separate article about norm functions.
Right. It is better. I am afraid that readers might believe as if hyp cos's work, which is of course significant in googogoly, is based only on his own work, while it is heavily based on Buchholz's great work.
p-adic 01:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
> Which page are you referring to? I was mentioning to this section, which does not require "α_i are principal ordinals, α_1 ⩾… ⩾α_m".
Yes, I mean the same section, but also taking into account the previous section. I quote Deedlit's text from the page:
...
Standard form
...
If α is not additively principal, then the standard form for α is α=α_1+α_2+…+α_n, where the α_i are principal ordinals with α_1≥α_2≥…≥α_n, and the α_i are expressed in standard form.
...
Fundamental sequences
...
We assume that the ordinal α is expressed in standard form.
...
If α=α_1+α_2+…+α_m, then cof (α) = cof (α_m) and α[η]=α_1+α_2+…+α_m[η]
...
end quote.
Thus, Deedlit didn't forget about α1≥α2≥…≥αn, but anyway we will rewrite the normal form, in particular because Deedlit didn’t require γ∈C(ν,γ,ϑ_ν(γ)) for case if α= ϑ_ν(γ).
--Denis Maksudov
> We assume that the ordinal α is expressed in standard form.
But this says nothing meaningful, as every ordinal in the context can be expressed in standard form. Isn't it precisely the same as the common mistake explained in the first paragraph of this section?
p-adic 15:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

And we can rewrite it for example in the same way as I did for other sections in the article:

Deedlit’s system of fundamental sequences

1. Definition of \(\vartheta\)-functions

...

2. Normal form for \(\vartheta\)-functions

We simultaneously define:

  1. predicate \(_{DNF}\);
  2. set \(T_D\) i.e. countable set of ordinals such that each element of the set can be denoted uniquely using only the symbols \(0,+,\Omega,\vartheta, \varphi\) where \(\varphi\) denotes binary Veblen function and \(\vartheta\) denotes the hierarchy of collapsing functions defined in the previous subsection;
  3. set \(P_D\) (subset of \(T_D\) which includes only additive principal numbers).

Definition of \(_{DNF}\)

  1. \(\alpha=_{DNF}\alpha _{1}+\cdots +\alpha _{n}\) iff \( \alpha =\alpha _{1}+\cdots +\alpha _{n}\wedge \alpha _{1}\geq \cdots \geq \alpha _{n}\wedge \alpha _{1},... ,\alpha _{n}\in P_D\)
  2. \(\alpha=_{DNF}\varphi(\beta,\gamma)\) iff \(\alpha=\varphi(\beta,\gamma)\) and \(\beta,\gamma<\alpha \)
  3. \(\alpha=_{DNF}\vartheta_\nu(\beta)\) iff \( \alpha=\vartheta_\nu(\beta) \wedge \beta\in C(\nu, \beta, \vartheta_\nu(\beta))\)

Definition of sets \(T_D\) and \(P_D\)

  1. \(P_D \subset T_D\)
  2. \(0 \in T_D\)
  3. If \(\alpha=_{DNF}\alpha _{1}+\cdots +\alpha _{n}\) and \(\alpha _{1},\cdots , \alpha _{n}\in P_D\) then \(\alpha \in T_D\)
  4. If \(\alpha=_{DNF}\vartheta_\nu(\beta)\) and \( \nu,\beta\in T_D\) then \(\alpha \in P_D\)
  5. If \(\alpha=_{DNF}\varphi(\beta,\gamma)\) and \(\beta,\gamma\in T_D\) then \(\alpha \in P_D\)
  6. If \(\alpha=\Omega_\beta\) and \(\beta\in T_D\) then \(\alpha \in P_D\)


3. Fundamental sequences

Fundamental sequences for non-zero ordinals \(\alpha\in T_D\) were defined by Deedlit as follows:

List of Deedlit’s rules for assignation of FS

--Denis Maksudov

It looks good, as long as you clarify which parts are originally given by Deedlit. Also, I think that it is good to clarify the credit to you, because I think that you are the one who proposed the clear solutions for existing problems. In addition, I propose to clarify whether there is a written ordinal notation associated to it or not, as it is an important point in computable googology.
p-adic 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@The panel members

Since the period for voting finished, we should pass this to the panel members. If you think that the discussion has been fully given and we should allow this blog post as the valid first source of a new arctile due to the discussion, then please accept the proposal. Otherwise, please reject the proposal.

p-adic 08:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I accept the proposal. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 06:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you.
p-adic 09:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

R function

R function is a powerful recursive notation that may be on par with Strong Array Notation if both were formalized. I think it needs more attention than it is receiving right now. Please tell me your opinion of adding it to the mainspace. BTW, I am currently working on formalizing it, so even if it is originally unformalized, I may be able to completely formalize it in the future. Zongshu Wu 12:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree as long as the article writes an alternative definition, because referring to an unformalised explanation is not good. Since you yourself are working on it, you should be evaluated as the one who is attempting to formalise it. For this purpose, it is good to ask others to check your alternative definition, because it is the key point of this voting in my opinion. I am sorry that I myself currently have few time. I hope some others will check your work carefully. I strongly recommend you to ask others to check your alternative formalisation before writing the article, because currently so many articles based on personal websites are poorly written. (You might remember that a blocked user wrote articles on the user's own ill-defined notations and repeated destructions so many times.) What do you think about?
p-adic 12:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I could share the link to the definition: https://sites.google.com/view/extremelylargenumbers/chapter-1-fundamentals-of-large-numbers

The definition is the section 1.3.

Zongshu Wu 13:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@The panel members

Since the period for voting finished, we should pass this to the panel members. If you think that the discussion has been fully given and we should allow this blog post as the valid first source of a new arctile due to the discussion, then please accept the proposal. Otherwise, please reject the proposal.

p-adic 08:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


Admin election

This is voting proposed here. Please tell us whethere you agree or disagree with the following topics:

  1. Choosing User:ARsygo to be a new admin.
  2. Relieving User:Cloudy176 from an admin.
  3. Relieving User:Username5243 from an admin.

Please check Googology Wiki:Policy#Voting. A single user cannot use two or more accounts in a voting. Only non-blocked users that were registered for at least 100 days (10 of them they were active) and 100 edits may vote to avoid abusing the voting system. Voting holds for 10 days. Please do not forget to add signature by writing four tildas.

Even if you agree (resp. disagree) with one of the topics, you can agree (resp disagree) with another one. Also, the voting right in this community is just a right, but not a duty. Therefore we do not force you to vote. (You can silently abstain from this voting, and you can express your decisions only for one or two of the topics.)

My decisions are:

  1. I agree.
  2. I agree.
  3. I agree.

p-adic 00:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thought I am qualified to have a right for voting, I am going to vote:
  1. I agree.
  2. I agree.
  3. I agree.
Kanrokoti (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. I agree.
  2. I disagree.
  3. I agree.
🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 17:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. I agree.
  2. I disagree.
  3. I abstain.
C7X (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  1. I support it.
  2. I strongly support it. Because Cloudy said, "I believe that copyright shouldn't exist", and tried to realize this belief through action.
  3. I support it.
--Hexirp (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Now ten days have been passed. I count valid votes:

  1. Agreement : Disagreement = 5 : 0
  2. Agreement : Disagreement = 3 : 2
  3. Agreement : Disagreement = 4 : 0

I recall that choosing a new admin requires that the number of users agreeing to choose the candidates as a new admin is greater than or equal to twice the number of users disagreeing. This is the case (5 ≧ 2 × 0 = 0). Relieving an admin requires that the number of users agreeing to relieve the admin is greater than or equal to the number of users disagreeing. This is also the case (3 ≧ 2 and 3 ≧ 1). So, the result is that ARsygo is a new admin, and Cloudy176 and Username5243 are normal users now.

I would like to send words of praise to our new admin ARsygo, thank Cloudy176 and Username5243 for their past contributions to this wiki, and members to share their opinions! In order to proceed the execution, I would like members of the panel to check the result.

According to the rule, if there is no user with permission (that hasn't expired as a result of the voting) to execute these decisions, then we will ask FANDOM to execute these decisions. Since all valid bureaucrats are inactive in this community, I think that this is the case. Is there any opinion about it?

p-adic 04:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I confirmed that the result is valid. I also suggest that there should be at least one bureaucrat, and therefore we ask FANDOM to set the active admin, C7X, to be a bureaucrat. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 06:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@fish
Thank you. I note that we have bureaucrats but they are inactive. (It is good to tell FANDOM the precise situtation.) I agree that there should be at least one active bureaucrat, because the lack of active bureaucrat is one of the reasons why we need this voting to choose a new admin.
@C7X
Do you agree to be a bureaucrat? (If you feel that one active bureaucrat is insufficient, it is good to make both of you and ARsygo bureaucrats. But I do not know whether one active bureaucrat is sufficient or not.)
p-adic 09:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
May 3. Agreement : Disagreement = 3 : 1 be 3. Agreement : Disagreement = 4 : 0? -- Hexirp (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops, exactly. I corrected it.
p-adic 11:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
From the activity requirement, I can accept. But I don't know the tools that bureaucrats have, or what a bureaucrat is (other than that it's a high-ranking privilege) C7X (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Bureaucrats can make a user an admin. (Help page)
p-adic 23:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you may start a new voting. -- Hexirp (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Sure, we can start a new voting after a month later. But we can also choose a usual way of decision, i.e. discussion. The reason why we need voting this time was because Username and Cloudy were not willing to listen to members' request (and Username were pretty eager to involve FANDOM to officially relieve himself rather than having fair discussion). On the other hand, we can basically discuss anything in this community as long as all active members can respect each other. So, it is good to spend days to discuss having a new bureaucrat. If we will not have a single decision, then it is good to have a new voting.
p-adic 03:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I suggested to promote C7X to bureucrat in response to p-adic's "According to the rule, if there is no user with permission (that hasn't expired as a result of the voting) to execute these decisions, then we will ask FANDOM to execute these decisions. Since all valid bureaucrats are inactive in this community, I think that this is the case. Is there any opinion about it?" Normally the admin are set by buraucrat and FANDOM set buraucrat when the community has no buraucrat by adoption request. In this situation, the only buraucrat who has edited in a year is Cloudy176, and Cloudy 176's last edit was 30 April 2021 (no more than 60 days), so we could ask Cloudy176 to execute the decision, but Cloudy176 was relieved by the voting. This is a special case and I am not sure what we can do; maybe p-adic could ask FANDOM what we can do. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 06:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the promotion. One point is whether we should only promote C7X or both of C7X and ARsygo. If C7X feels OK to be a unique active bureaucrat, then it is ok. If C7X wants to share tasks (which appear perhaps at most once or twice in a year, I guess) with ARsygo, then it is good to reflect the opinion. Although I think that it is sufficient to have a single active bureaucrat, it is good to know what C7X wants to do.
Of course, I can ask FANDOM after the decision. (Or anybody else, especially members of the panel or active admins, are also ok.)
p-adic 08:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
We need to ask FANDOM to promote C7X for buraucrat. After that, C7X can promote anyone to buraucrat or admin. That is not FANDOM's work. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
It makes sense. So, could I know whether C7X agrees with the direction or not?
p-adic 12:17, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If promoting me to bureaucrat is the best course of action for active administration, I can accept. I don't know enough about the user ARsygo (other than activity) in order to say either way for their promotion C7X (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that it is ok to consider and discuss after promoting you, as fish suggested. Then I will ask FANDOM to do so. (It perhaps cost a day, because I am busy today, too.)
p-adic 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed there are more inactive bureaucrats in this wiki, Ace45954 (inactive since 2013), Vel! (the creator / founder of this wiki, formerly known as Followed by 100 zeroes, inactive since 2018). What shall we do with them? Relieve it as well? ARsygo (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
As they are doing nothing, there is no reason to relieve. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 07:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
If someone wants to relieve them in order to avoid future troubles, then he or she might propose to hold a voting. (FANDOM has an official rule to relieve too inactive admins, and hence they might be relived by FANDOM even if we do not vote.)
By the way, I asked FANDOM to execute the decision a few days ago. Perhaps the execution will cost days or a week.
p-adic 08:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
"FANDOM has an official rule to relieve too inactive admins" where is it written? 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 08:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
It is written in a Japanese help page "なお、既存のアドミン・ビューロクラット権限については、該当する方が1年以上活動されていない場合、喪失手続きをとらせていただく場合があります。", but I noticed that it is perhaps a wrong interpretation of "Existing admins may be removed only if they have been inactive for more than one year." in the corresponding English help page.
p-adic 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I see. So as the request this time is a kind of adoption, they may remove inactive admins or buraucrats. This is not a rule that community should obey, but rather FANDOM's decision. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 10:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Request accepted. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 16:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Great.
p-adic 22:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


User_blog:Kanrokoti/Subspecies_Primitive_psi_Function

I propose to put this notation into the mainspace. The reasons are following:

  1. This is an additive notation which makes it easy to understand, because this notation is an extension of User_blog:P進大好きbot/Ordinal_Notation_Associated_to_Extended_Buchholz's_OCF.
  2. I think this notation seems to be well-defined.
  3. I think this is a few notation which is expected to reach \(\textrm{BM4}(0,0,0)(1,1,1)(2,2,1)\) and actually given the definition.
  4. I think this is a few notation which attempts to merge a nest notation and a sequence system, and I think this idea is very unique. (or maybe I just don't know the well-defined notations using the similar idea.)
  5. I think the definition of this notation is relatively compact considering the reason 3 and 4.

I also think this notation is not appropriate for the mainspace. The reason is following:

  1. This notation is not peer-reviewed well and not analyzed well. Therefore, this notation may contains serious problems like being ill-defined or doesn't reach the expectation. This significantly loses the purpose to put this into the mainspace I mentioned above.

Since I am the creator of the notation, it may contains some biases. So please tell me your thoughts and votes.

Kanrokoti (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Good. Since it is a new notation and many of members in this community does not know the definition, I propose to set one month for members in this community to understand the behaviour and judge the notability in a fair point of view, before the voting. (For example, I do not know the behaviour.) Also, we appreciate if you make rough evidences of the reason 2 (such as a table) accessible, because it helps members to grasp the behaviour.
p-adic 23:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Let's set one month before voting. Since there is a googological event in this month in Japanese community, it is also good to submit this notation and wait for the analysis. BTW, I made the cheatsheet and put link in the blogpost, but its content is not well-informed. In case that this notation won't be analyzed in the event (I mean "殿堂入り" with no analysis), I think I should add some contents in the cheatsheet. I'm too lazy to do that tho.
Kanrokoti (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to reform Googology Wiki:Policy and Googology Wiki:Guidelines

I believe that Googology Wiki:Policy is excessively long, with most of its content being either redundant or better fitting in Googology Wiki:Guideline; to be more friendly to both new users and old users that haven't read the latest version of the policy, I propose that both pages should be rewritten.

More specifically, I propose the following:

Restructuring of the pages

Both pages have great structural inconsistency; for example, some sections are very short while others are very long, the sections have no thematic continuity in their order, and a good amount of information is stated multiple times across multiple sections instead of being primarily contained in one section. Hence, I propose:

  1. The Googology Wiki:Policy and Googology Wiki:Guideline pages should be restructured to minimize the amount of sections used and references to other sections/subsections or pages inside of a specific section/subsection, in order to achieve greater thematic organization.

I additionally give the following structure as both a proposal and an example of the issue at hand, though it is not part of the vote and does not necessarily have to be the final one, and I encourage modifications and other suggestions:

Googology Wiki:Policy

  1. Basic wiki structure -- merge sections 1, 2, 7 and 13 into one section detailing the basic structure of the wiki and its rules, e.g voting and its rules, different kinds of wiki staff and how to elect or relieve them, the warn/block system and how many warns are required to get blocked
  2. Article policy -- section 10. As the two offenses mentioned in this section relate to editing articles, this would be a more fitting name. The rest of the section, i.e warning users and more general aspects of the warn/block system, can be merged with the "basic wiki structure" section.
  3. Social policy -- sections 4 and 8 (or perhaps "social and non-article policy"), to cover offenses of other features of the platform, such as blog posts (these features tend to be more social in nature) and interaction between users (e.g harassment, bigotry, abuse). This section would have a similar structure to "article policy".

Googology Wiki:Guideline

  1. General rules (section 1 + Googology Wiki:Policy sections 9,11). For rules that do not fall into any other topic, and can stand alone as topics of their own.
  2. Citations and sources (section 2 + Googology Wiki:Policy sections 3,5,6). Policy sections 5 and 6 cover the same topic as Guideline section 2, with all its subsections literally having a "main article" link directing to a subsection of the Policy page; furthermore, section 3 covers original work and when it can be allowed an article on the wiki, something already covered in Guideline section 2.
  3. Copyright (Googology Wiki:Policy section 12). Self-explanatory.

Summarization of the rules and guidelines

The Googology Wiki:Policy and Googology Wiki:Guideline pages provide many examples, specific cases and clarifications for the rules and guidelines they describe, which are often completely unnecessary, and are not needed for the average person to understand the rule and whether their actions comply with it, as well as for admins to determine if an action breaks the rule or not: I point out that many Discord servers tend to use short, to-the-point rules, e.g "Do not spam" or "Do not harass, insult or be bigoted against other users". Hence, I propose:

  1. The rules and guidelines in the Googology Wiki:Policy and Googology Wiki:Guideline pages are to be rewritten so that they are as compact as possible while still remaining clear to the average layman, eliminating any examples and only specifying specific cases where it's unclear if the rule is being broken or not.

Please let me know if any clarification is needed - I might have explained a point incorrectly or missed some details. despacito 06:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and long time no see! The reformulation project is actually ongoing, and several discussions have been done. Therefore I am confident that the policy will be updated so that old and new users can easily grasp it. (And I need to apologise that the current policy looks dirty due to my bad English. Many parts of the current policy was originally written by me, of course after proposing to do so in the talk page.) By the way, I suggest you to move this proposal to Googology Wiki talk:Policy Update Task List, because we are using the page for discussions on updating policy. Thank you.
p-adic 06:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Large primitive sequence system

I propose keeping this article in the mainspace as opposed to deleting it, since it is quite common in analyses, and has many well-known derivatives or spin-offs, such as Y sequence, Subspecies Primitive Difference Psi Function, etc. 0101 0101 0101 ... 07:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I vote for keeping Large primitive sequence system. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 07:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I vote for deleting it once despite of the notability, because it actually currently violates the policy. Instead, we can vote for the creation of the article afer the deletion if someone propose it by following Googology Wiki:Policy#Voting rather than accepting the exception. (Then I will not disagree with the creation, I think.) I am seriouly afraid of the case where people will feel unfair if we allow such an exception violating the current policy.
p-adic 09:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your point of view. So, should I delete it and, if the vote passes, recreate it? 0101 0101 0101 ... 09:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the plan. So, if nobody (especially kyodaisuu) disagrees with it, it is good to try the deletion and another voting.
p-adic 11:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Second vote

Now that the page has been deleted, I propose we add a new version of the article to the mainspace. And, p-adic, might I ask why you think it currently violates the policy? 0101 0101 0101 ... 12:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree to add. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems that I voted too early. By reading the discussions so far, I am now confused and retract my agreement. After the proposal is explained with sources, I will vote again. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 13:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
> might I ask why you think it currently violates the policy?
Sure.
  1. According to Googology Wiki:Policy#Original work (READ THIS!), "Original work on the wiki is allowed as long as it is cited from a good source".
  2. According to Googology_Wiki:Policy#Citations, "Forums and other wikis (sister wikis of Googology Wiki, nlab, and so on)" cannot be good source.
  3. Accoding to Googology Wiki:Policy#Blog posts, "It is allowed to put content from blog post to the mainspace under the voting system."
So, the article was not based on a good source in terms of the policy, and the cited blog post was not valid as a source, either because it had not passed the voting system. So, even when we claim the reliability of the cited blog post, we needed to first hold a voting before creating the article.
Does it make sense? I am sorry if my explanation is bad. Please do not hesitate to ask me if something is still unclear.
p-adic 13:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
No, I understand, thanks for clarifying. So, do you, or do you not, vote for adding this notation to the mainspace. 0101 0101 0101 ... 20:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Since I do not know this notation well, I first check it if I have time. (Since voting holds 10 days due to the policy, I will clarify the position later, if I actually check it. Of course, if I do not have time, I simply abstrain the voting.)
p-adic 23:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
By the way, does somebody cite the blog post, which will be chosen to be the first source? Thank you.
p-adic 23:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
The voting holds for 10 days, but since nobody has ever shared a link to the blog post which will be regarded as the first source of "Large primitive sequence system", I propose to start the voting 10 days right after somebody share the link. Otherwise, users should judge the notability (or even the correctness of the source) before knowing the source. At least, I cannot currently find a blog post in which the name "Large primitive sequence system" appears. (Therefore users might even suspect that the name "Large primitive sequence system" is made-up one due to the inaccessibiity of the source.)
p-adic 01:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Binary198 and @kyodaisuu

Well, related to the lack of a link to the first source, I obtained several doubts on the statements, thanks to information from koteitan:

  1. There seems to be no notation called "large primitive sequence" created by Yukito.
  2. There is a notation called "large primitive sequence" created by Bashicu, but it is unformalised. (In addition, Bashicu later renamed it several times and deleted it.)
  3. There seems to be no source of the claim that Y sequence, Subspecies Primitive Difference Psi Function, and so on are actually intended to be derivatives of "large primitive sequence". (Have the creators insisted so?)

So, I now seriously doubt the correctness of the contents of the future article. Before starting the voting, could you share us the following items?

  1. The blog post which will be chosen to be the first source of "large primitive sequence" created by Yukito.
  2. Sources of the statement that the creators of Y sequence, Subspecies Primitive Difference Psi Function, and so on intend that "large primitive sequence" created by Yukito is an origin of them.

I am sorry if I am too pedantic, but sharing sources is very important for an academic wiki. Thank you.

p-adic 03:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

> By the way, does somebody cite the blog post, which will be chosen to be the first source?
I think so. I don't recall LPrSS having been defined anywhere else.
> related to the lack of a link to the first source
The notation in question was defined here.
> There seems to be no source of the claim that Y sequence, Subspecies Primitive Difference Psi Function, and so on are actually intended to be derivatives of "large primitive sequence". (Have the creators insisted so?)
Regarding Y sequence, I was sure of this claim, but I don't actually remember where I saw it. However, I'm sure about the claim regarding SPrDPF:
In Kanrokoti's page for SPrDPF: We define Subspecies primitive difference psi function. This notation extends Ordinal Notation Associated to Extended Buchholz's OCF by introducing Subspecies primitive difference sequence to subscripts of \(\psi\).
In Kanrokoti's page for SPrDS: We define Subspecies primitive difference sequence. Subspecies primitive difference sequence is expected to be a notation which translates Subspecies Primitive psi Function into sequences.
In Kanrokoti's page for SPrPF: We define Subspecies Primitive psi Function. Subspecies Primitive psi Function is based on Ordinal Notation Associated to Extended Buchholz's OCF defined by p進大好きbot, embedding Subspecies Primitive Sequence defined by ゆきと into subscripts of psi.
And Subspecies Primitive Sequence is actually the same as Large Primitive Sequence System (it has a Japanese article here, and the expansion rule is exactly the same).
> The blog post which will be chosen to be the first source of "large primitive sequence" created by Yukito.
We can also use the Japanese article I linked above as a secondary source.
> Sources of the statement that the creators of Y sequence, Subspecies Primitive Difference Psi Function, and so on intend that "large primitive sequence" created by Yukito is an origin of them.
Like I said, I am sure of the claim for SPrDPF. I have asked Yukito on 巨大数研究Wiki regarding the claim of whether LPrSS was the true origin of Y sequence.
> I am sorry if I am too pedantic, but sharing sources is very important for an academic wiki. Thank you.
Do not worry about it, and you're welcome! 0101 0101 0101 ... 08:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer.
> And Subspecies Primitive Sequence is actually the same as Large Primitive Sequence System (it has a Japanese article here, and the expansion rule is exactly the same).
Where is the definition of "large primitive sequense system" defined by Yukito, which you are citing?
As I said, I could not find such a notation. Here are the points:
  1. The blog post only refers to "亜原始数列" (SPrSS), and hence cannot be the first source of "LPrSS by Yukito".
  2. The claim that "LPrSS by Yukito" is identical to SPrSS is not reproducible, unless you share a link to the definition of "LPrSS by Yukito". (As I said, what I could find was a source of LPrSS by Bashicu rather than "LPrSS by Yukito". Since the creators are different, they are not identical. In addition, since LPrSS by Bashicu is unformalised, the statement that it is identical to SPrSS is non-sense unless Bashicu accepts the fact that it is intended to be identical. Even in that case, stating that LPrSS by Bashicu is a notation by Yukito is simply incorrect.)
  3. The claim that "LPrSS by Yukito" is an origin of Y-sequence should be carefully checked, because it can be an incorrect explanation if there is no actual source. (Even if we accept your claim that SPrSS can be the origin of Y-sequence, the lack of a shared source of the identification of "LPrSS by Yukito" and SPrSS prevents us to deduce that "LPrSS by Yukito" is an origin of Y-sequence.)
Since I think that Yukito really dislikes a situation where people claim incorrect statements about Yukito's notations, I would like to ask a precise source for the definition of "LPrSS by Yukito" and the comparison of "LPrSS by Yukito" and SPrSS.
p-adic 10:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


I further asked Yukito, rpakr, and kanrokoti for further information. At least, Yukito denied that Yukito created such a notation. The notation called "LPrSS" in this context (different from LPrSS by Bashicu) seems to be originally posted by C7X (as a work by somebody else) in GFE, which is a closed wiki filled with unsourced contents deleted by FANDOM due to violation of Terms of Use, and the claim that "LPrSS" by C7X is identical to SPrSS is not a statement by Yukito, and the claim that it is an origin of Y-sequence is denied by Yukito.
So, this situation is quite strange. Most of the statements are incorrect. Is this project proposed only by Ubersketch? Or is there some member in an external communty who suggested Ubersketch to do so by hiding actual historical backgrounds?
p-adic 11:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
> Where is the definition of "large primitive sequense system" defined by Yukito, which you are citing?
I'm not sure, I've only heard people on the GS discuss it. Ask Ubersketch, since he made the original page. I guess maybe we should rename the page to "Subspecies Primitive Sequence System".
> Is this project proposed only by Ubersketch?
I believe so. He told me about it in our direct messages, and I agreed to join the project. 0101 0101 0101 ... 11:56, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
> Ask Ubersketch, since he made the original page.
At least, since this voting is proposed by you but not Ubersketch, I think that it is better for you yourself (not Ubersketch) to close it due to the lack of sources for the name and notability.
> I guess maybe we should rename the page to "Subspecies Primitive Sequence System".
In that case, it is good to start another voting for the name (by first showing a link to the blog post and a suorce of claims on the notability and also clarifying what to write, in order to avoid a similar mistake).
p-adic 12:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Before you start your poll, would you please be open about which articles you are going to add and talking about? I can see nothing from my point of view and I have no idea what you are talking about. Koteitan (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I did some searching about this topic on the wikis, Twitter, and Discord. Here are some results in no particular order.
--Naruyoko (Talk) 22:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
So, the statement that "LPrSS" is a notation created by Yukito seems to be an unintensionally made-up one. Since Yukito denies it and Yukito dislikes that people calls 亜原始数列 as "LPrSS", we should not create an article on "LPrSS by Yukito".
In addition, it is inappropriate to create an article on "LPrSS in discord" or "LPrSS in GFE", because the source does not include it and the claim that it is identical to 亜原始数列 is not reproducible due to the lack of the source of a definition.
At any rate, the origin of Y-sequence is not a notation called "LPrSS in discord" or "LPrSS in GFE", but is 亜原始数列. So, nothing is correct in the statements of the deleted article.
If we allowed to create such an article, we could create an article on a notation X which is only common in some local community stating that X is identical to SAN, is created by hyp cos, and is an origin of Buchholz's hydra (or whatever you like), by citing a source such as hyp cos's website on SAN, which includes no actual information of X. This explains how unreasonable it is to create an article on "LPrSS by Yukito".
p-adic 22:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
To search channels including inactive ones, I searched through an archive (Googology Server! backup (11-22-2019)). Here are the earliest instances of related words in each channel. The backup captured messages going back to as early as 2016.
  • "LPrSS":
    • rpakr (05-Aug-19 06:53 PM) @ #general: "H(L) is what lprss will be made into"
    • CatIsFluffy (01-Aug-19 10:30 PM) @ #large-number-programs: "But LPrSS might be shorter"
    • CatIsFluffy (07-Aug-19 05:02 PM) @ #notations: "So does anyone have any ideas for defining PrSS extensions other than LPrSS in terms of standard forms?"
    • CatIsFluffy (16-Sep-19 06:19 PM) @ #bot-suggestions: "Added LPrSS and an incorrect implementation of HPrSS to !ms."
    • CatIsFluffy (06-Aug-19 03:28 PM) @ #bashicu-matrix: "For example, in LPrSS, the maximum difference between an entry and its parent is the difference between the first two entries (and more restrictions since this still allows 01011 for example)"
    • rpakr (16-Sep-19 06:03 PM) @ #y-sequence: "I can make LPrSS and HPrSS if Yukito allows me to"
  • "large prss": no results
  • "large primitive":
    • rpakr (01-Aug-19 10:29 PM) @ #large-number-programs: "Why not do large primitive sequence system"
  • "DPrSS"
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (29-Aug-19 12:18 AM) @ #general: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • rpakr (17-Sep-19 07:16 PM) @ #off-topic: "Can I also have the programmer role? I coded BM3.3 in yabasic and DPrSS in C++."
    • nish (01-Jan-19 07:46 PM) @ #analysis: "Or DrPrSS (DPrSS = Double PrSS)"
    • rpakr (24-Aug-19 07:48 PM) @ #large-number-programs: [Attachment: DPrSS.exe]
    • CatIsFluffy (25-Aug-19 10:24 PM) @ #mine: "!dprss 4 99 (1,2,3,1)"
    • rpakr (05-Aug-19 11:24 PM) @ #notations: "also we should say DPrSS instead of TY because TY is what yukito was thinking about and DPrSS is my predicition of how TY works and is what I posted here"
    • rpakr (01-Sep-19 01:15 PM) @ #ordinals: "@Patcail Your idea is really similar to my DPrSS"
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (20-Sep-19 03:29 PM) @ #the-not-so-grand-matrix: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • rpakr (23-Aug-19 02:45 PM) @ #bot-suggestions: "I haven't finished though but I'm coding dprss"
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (27-Aug-19 10:26 PM) @ #matrix-meta: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (06-Sep-19 04:52 PM) @ #memes: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • CatIsFluffy (25-Aug-19 10:32 PM) @ #robot-apocalypse-room: "!dprss 2 0 (1,3)"
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (29-Sep-19 02:59 PM) @ #robot-apocalypse-room-v2: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (09-Sep-19 04:59 PM) @ #robot-apocalypse-room-v3: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (10-Sep-19 03:11 PM) @ #the-grand-matrix: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • rpakr (21-Aug-19 07:12 PM) @ #bashicu-matrix: "TY sequence by Yukito and DPrSS by me work like that"
    • Ecl1psed (30-Sep-19 02:15 PM) @ #strong-array: "In DPrSS, we have W=1,3. I=1,3,5. M=1,3,5,7. K=1,3,5,7,9. And U=1,3,5,7,9,11"
    • rpakr (27-Dec-18 12:00 AM) @ #taranovsky-ordinals: "First, I will explain a notation called DPrSS, which stands for Double Primitive Sequence System."
    • catisfluffy-test-bot (28-Aug-19 03:14 PM) @ #y-sequence: "!dprss n c s Evaluate DPrSS (coded by rpakr). Same parameters as !bm2." (Partially shown for brevity)
    • Comment: rpakr's program (either from the source or the output of catisfluffy-test-bot) does not match in behavior. Included for completeness.
  • "difference prss": no results
  • "difference primitive": no results
  • "APrSS": no results
    • Comment: I do not know about anyone using "APrSS" as an abbreviation of "Ascending Primitive Sequence System". Included for completeness.
  • "ascending prss": no results
  • "ascending primitive": no results
  • "subprime seq": no results
  • "SPrSS": no results
  • "subspecies prss": no results
  • "subspecies primitive": no results
  • "strong prss": no results
  • "strong primitive": no results
Search done with: Notepad++ v8.1.9.2 (64-bit), "Find in Files" with filters "*.*", "in all sub folders", match whole words only OFF, match case OFF, search mode "normal".
--Naruyoko (Talk) 17:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not understand the intention of this message, because this does not change the current situation (that it seems that the statement that LPrSS is created by Yukito is unintentionally made-up) and does not include your opinion. Could you explain your opinion clearly? Thank you.
p-adic 23:12, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
My intent was to provide more complete information and remove ambiguity on usage of the term "LPrSS" in Googology Server in the last few years. Since it turned no evidence of LPrSS (is at least the name) coming before 亜原始数列, my opinion is that the article be written for 亜原始数列, and if there are substantial sources of the use and interest to justify the use of alternative names (they should clearly point the origins), then there may be a redirect and be mentioned within the article, kind of like with alternative names of numbers. --Naruyoko (Talk) 05:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
In that case, in my opinion, it is better to separate your information from the discussion for this voting. Since this is a voting for whether we should create an article on "LPrSS by Yukito" based on Yukito's blog post regarded as a first source, such a sort of irrelevant discussions on how to improve a future article on "亜原始数列" should be avoided here. At least, I think that most parts of this section are irrelevant to this voting itself, and hence it is really difficult for other users to decide whether they should agree or disagree. (Say, you can write a blog post to keep log, and share it when somebody try to propose for voting for "亜原始数列".)
p-adic 05:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I see. I am considering to create a blog post, as you suggested. Do you believe that I could/should remove the lists to decrease clutter (thereby editing my past messages), so long as I do the following: in the blog post, I give a link to the revision of this voting page which added the list; in this page, I put a link to the blog post in place of the lists; in this page, I put additional signatures to indicate edits; and in this page, I indicate that I moved the list. If so, do you think I should move both lists or only the second (more off-topic) list? --Naruyoko (Talk) 17:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
> Do you believe that
Although I am not literally understand what this "believe" precisely means, I guess that it is good for you to do what you yourself think that is good, as I trust that you are better at finding reasoable solutions than me. If you are just asking whether such a way looks good for me or not, then I answer "It looks ok. In addition, keeping them is also ok as long as there will not be additional off-topic sentences, because there are already many replies to you like this." Namely, it might be a sort of 夜景死に見ず.
p-adic 22:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Advertisement