Which value?[]
What is the exact value of the great googolplex: 1010100+1 or 10101000? --84.61.176.82 18:50, December 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Millilliard is 106003, so millilliardplex is 10106003. According to this source, great googolplex has an 1000, where millilliardplex has a 6003. So great googolplex should have the value of 10101000. --84.61.176.82 17:12, December 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Joyce's googology is exceptionally broken. He consistently makes the mistake (a^b)^c = a^(b^c). Consequently Joyce mistakenly uses the definition g(2,1000,g(3,2,10)) which translates to (10^10)^1000, assuming this is the same value as 10^10^1000. To make matters worse he defines the great operator a n-great = g(2,a+1,b) where n = g(2,a,b). Following this reasoning, since googolplex = g(2,10^100,10) , great googolplex should be g(2,10^100+1,10). Hence the discrepancy. Joyce doesn't even follow his own rule when he establishes it! By a similar reckoning since googol = g(2,100,10), it should follow that great googol = g(2,101,10). Instead it's g(2,1000,10). Sbiis Saibian (talk) 18:25, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- The article is actually a retelling/translation of Joyce's work by Michael Halm, so it may be Halm's fault and not Joyce's. you're.so.pretty! 21:45, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- And while we're at it, I'll note that it's frustratingly difficult to find any information on Joyce. No records about who he was, when and where he lived, or where we can access his work, outside of the cryptic information that Halm provides us. We do know that he associated himself with 'pataphysics, a 19th-century French philosophical movement marked by surrealism, satire, and wordplay, certainly consistent with the site's stock of amusing mathematical and linguistic inventions. I'm actually beginning to suspect that André Joyce is a fictional character, that Joyce is an alias for Halm — all part of an absurdist 'pataphysical prank on us all. you're.so.pretty! 22:05, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- I was beginning to suspect the same. Frankly that entire "hierogamous enterprise" site drives me nuts. Who are these people and what is it they are trying to do? There is no place that clearly explains the impetus of the site. In the absence of other sources however, we have to take the text at face value. If it is ambiguous, but we can somehow read the intention of the writer, then we are basically offering an interpretation, but taken literally the text is ill-conceived. As such there are at least 3 definitions which can be derived for a great googol which are supported by the text. It might be 10^101, based on the first scheme suggested, it might be 10^1000, as explicitly defined, or it might be 10^300, by using the general case for n-ex-great googol, where n=1. In cases where the text is itself ambiguous I'm not sure what your policy is. All 3 of these numbers are well defined, but the problem appears to be that the author is unaware that these concepts lead to different values. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 22:29, April 16, 2014 (UTC)
- Even weirder is the fact that a portion of the site is copied verbatim somewhere else. The copy calls itself "Hierogamous House" rather than "Hierogamous Enterprise," but all articles are credited to Razilee Purdue rather than Michael Halm (both sites mention the other's author by name, so they're definitely affiliated). It's weird, and I really don't understand what it's all about, but I enjoy a lot of the articles. In particular I like Dominissimo, Jootsy Calculus, and Oology; it's all a load of shamelessly fun recreational math, even if it doesn't always make sense.
- We don't really have a policy for when a work is self-contradictory. In this case, I'd recommend discussing the contradiction on the page, saying something like "This is great googolplex. Joyce's article self-contradicts here, but for reason X we can guess that he meant Y." you're.so.pretty! 00:00, April 17, 2014 (UTC)
- I was beginning to suspect the same. Frankly that entire "hierogamous enterprise" site drives me nuts. Who are these people and what is it they are trying to do? There is no place that clearly explains the impetus of the site. In the absence of other sources however, we have to take the text at face value. If it is ambiguous, but we can somehow read the intention of the writer, then we are basically offering an interpretation, but taken literally the text is ill-conceived. As such there are at least 3 definitions which can be derived for a great googol which are supported by the text. It might be 10^101, based on the first scheme suggested, it might be 10^1000, as explicitly defined, or it might be 10^300, by using the general case for n-ex-great googol, where n=1. In cases where the text is itself ambiguous I'm not sure what your policy is. All 3 of these numbers are well defined, but the problem appears to be that the author is unaware that these concepts lead to different values. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 22:29, April 16, 2014 (UTC)