abstract
| - So you're saying that now he can't make any claims or even guesses about BEAF and should just agree to accept that it's "undefined" and do nothing about it? If so, then I beg to differ, as I still find that people should still be allowed to vary their views on BEAF and stuff. I may be an old-timer, but still. —Comment by Cookiefonster (talk • contribs), moved from the corresponding page The problem here is that it's being used in a way that not even Bowers discussed. No justification is given for the use of & in the context of the Veblen function, let alone a definition of any sort. it's vel time 01:56, October 21, 2014 (UTC) Oh, I get what you're saying now. Cookiefonster (talk) 01:56, October 21, 2014 (UTC) Even if I were to agree with your views on "being able to estimate googological functions" even when they aren't well-defined, I would still draw the limit at ill-defined ordinal notations. This is set theory and formal logic we're talking about. Ordinals don't fuck around with that estimation shit. it's vel time 02:00, October 21, 2014 (UTC)
|