This number is still unknown because we haven't even found and maybe even impossible to find a prime number after googolplex so should we delete this page or what? Tamatak 'v chamatak ki (talk) 10:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is well defined and it is clear that the number exists. So there is no reason to delete this page. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This number must exist considering that there is an infinite number of primes Tamatak 'v chamatak ki (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Could you explain what your point in your question is?
- p-adic 12:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
ahhh, I still don't know much about number theory, I'm afraid that this number is bigger than expected, maybe you can explain pbot? Tamatak 'v chamatak ki (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
oh pbot, I want to talk to you on one of the approximation notation templates for a googolism https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/Template:Approximations there it says "down is for down-arrow notation" the problem is which definition is meant by down arrow here, the first or the second, because there are two definitions used for down arrow notation if only down-arrow notation is used then it is still ill defined because you haven't explained which definition you want to use, trivial things like this need to be fixed considering that the approximations template has been widely used on various pages
The second is a statement in the googology wiki policy analyses section which states that "Please note that well-definedness has not been proven for all notations in the list." what does it mean that well-definedness has notbeen proven here and one of the notations in the list is scientific notation and scientific notation that I know has been defined using exponentiation, indeed sometimes it is a bit ambiguous for example 1.20 x 10^30 = 1.2 x 10^30 but what I know is that scientific notation has been well defined, maybe you have other arguments that can strengthen your opinion but please change the statement because the reader is confused by the meaning
Thank you Tamatak 'v chamatak ki (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- It is out of the topic of this page, but "Please note that well-definedness has not been proven for all notations in the list." is a partial negation. I cite explanation from this page. This is a basic grammer of English.
Partial negation refers to negation that applies to some members of a category but not to other members. For instance in the sentence, "I don't eat every kind of meat", the category is "meat", so this sentence could mean "I do not eat pork, but I do eat beef and chicken."
To partially negate something, use 'not' with 'all'/ 'every'/variations of 'all' or 'every' (such as 'always', 'all the time', 'every day', 'every minute').
- I do not eat all kinds of meat. (= category: "kinds of meat". I eat some kinds of meat but not others)
- I do not eat every kind of meat.
- I do not always eat meat. (= category: time. I eat meat sometimes but not all the time)
- I do not eat meat every day. (= category: day. I eat meat some days but not all days)
- I do not eat meat at every meal. (= category: meal. I eat meat at lunch or dinner but not for breakfast)
- As it is a partial negation, this sentence does not imply that scientific notation is not well-defined. Of course it is well-defined.
- 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 15:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- > please change the statement because the reader is confused by the meaning
- It is off-topic here, and I do not understand why you personally ask me.
- p-adic 13:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)