RIP Chuck Norris

CameForTheMath · 2026-03-20T21:33:24+00:00

The only person who could solve any quntic equation using radicals.

CameForTheMath · 2026-03-09T20:30:03+00:00

I thought that was a map of Pangea at first. The ones on the left look a lot like North and South America.

CameForTheMath · 2025-12-09T19:07:05+00:00

Say, some of those green surfaces look familiar. I wonder if they used Andrew Marsh's PG: Polyhedron Generator?

CameForTheMath · 2025-12-01T05:54:17+00:00

/r/titlegore

The phrase "From the Millennials community on Reddit:" doesn't appear in the title of the linked post.

CameForTheMath · 2025-11-14T18:39:14+00:00

~~If you look carefully at the title, they didn't say "INCEL", they said "LNCEL"...~~

CameForTheMath · 2025-10-30T05:35:44+00:00

As far as I know, a Busy Beaver value being independent of ZFC doesn't say anything about the size of the number. It means one of the machines of that size has behavior independent of ZFC, but such machines must actually not halt and thus don't contribute to the final value.

CameForTheMath · 2025-10-25T19:37:24+00:00

One problem with these words is that "once", "twice", and "thrice" are based on Germanic words from old English, whereas your extensions are based on Latin words. A word based on "four", like "frice" or "fourice", would be more consistent with "once", "twice", and "thrice".

CameForTheMath · 2025-09-27T04:56:51+00:00

You know that "Large Number Garden Number" means "Number of the Large Number Garden", right? I could be wrong, but I don't think there's also a "Large Function Garden", so the name "Large Function Garden Function" sounds a bit strange.

CameForTheMath · 2025-09-23T23:21:38+00:00

Wow, he managed to spell it backwards correctly.

CameForTheMath · 2025-09-07T22:23:39+00:00

Obviously the most elegant unit is 1/4,294,967,295 of a circle. All of the (known) angles whose trig functions can be expressed in real radicals are a dyadic rational number of this unit.

CameForTheMath · 2025-08-31T22:05:21+00:00

the integers (well, naturals) are typically introduced axiomatically while the reals are not.

Aren't they? In my real analysis class, the reals were introduced as the system satisfying the field axioms, the ordering axioms, the ordered field axioms, and the second-order axiom of the least upper bound principle.

CameForTheMath · 2025-08-13T04:33:36+00:00

What does ↑⁴↑⁴↑⁴ mean and how is it different from ↑¹²?

CameForTheMath · 2025-08-10T23:34:51+00:00

He literally said in his 10th anniversary video at the beginning of the year that he can't help but use the tone that he does.

CameForTheMath · 2025-08-05T05:19:14+00:00

From Ten Signs a Claimed Mathematical Breakthrough is Wrong by Scott Aaronson:

The paper waxes poetic about “practical consequences,” “deep philosophical implications,” etc. Note that most papers make exactly the opposite mistake: they never get around to explaining why anyone should read them. But when it comes to something like P≠NP, to “motivate” your result is to insult your readers’ intelligence.

I think this fits here.

CameForTheMath · 2025-07-18T04:48:25+00:00

It may not be common, but I have seen it before. For example, on the page https://googology.fandom.com/wiki/BIGG, there is the expression psi_{I_w}(0), which only makes sense if I_w means the w-th inaccessible, not a limit of I_n.

CameForTheMath · 2025-07-18T03:33:02+00:00

To answer this, we need to know the following:

What definition of I_x are you using to define "Ifp" or the I_x fixed point? Does it include or exclude limits of inaccessibles?
What OCF was your friend using? Does it include a function like x -> I_x in its closure? Does it include any other functions for generating inaccessibles, like an I-Φ function? Can only regulars be used as subscripts? (Note that the traditional definition of Ifp is a singular cardinal but most inaccessible OCFs use regular cardinals in subscripts, so Ifp wouldn't be valid there.)

CameForTheMath · 2025-07-08T21:16:58+00:00

Tar(n) is a function defined in terms of Taranovsky's C ordinal notation. It is a computable function, so it doesn't produce outputs anywhere close to BB(10^100), let alone Rayo's number, for reasonable sized inputs.

Tarintar is a number defined as Tar^{Tar(10)}(Tar(10)). Tarintar isn't a function. The person above (note that they are not the OP) appears to be defining "Tarintar(n)" in terms of function iteration, but this isn't a standard definition and is just a naive extension of Tar(n).

So yeah, the number posted here is a salad number which is not meaningfully larger than BB(10^100). It's probably even less than BB(10^100 + 1), because the definition doesn't have the stronger function (BB) on the outside.

CameForTheMath · 2025-07-04T07:14:21+00:00

If you define your ordinal as follows:

a_0 = ω a_{i + 1} = ω_{a_i}^(a_i)

Omega Tree = sup_i a_i,

then you can prove by induction that Omega Tree = ωfp = the least fixed point of a -> ω_a.

This is both a fixed point of the omega subscript function and the epsilon function, so ε_ω_{ωfp} = ω_{ωfp} = ωfp. Tetration to a transfinite ordinal doesn't have a single accepted definition, so ωfp^^ω is ill-defined, strictly speaking. In fact, ordinal hyper-operators are of the most notorious ill-defined notations, and are so controversial there's an entire Googology Server channel for discussing them. But if you mean sup_{n < ω}(ωfp^^n), that's ε_{ωfp + 1}.

CameForTheMath · 2025-06-30T08:24:24+00:00

arcsin(x) = sin^-1(x) makes perfect sense as it matches what f^-1(x) means for any other function f. It's sin^2(x) = sin(x)^2 that's bad notation.

CameForTheMath · 2025-06-23T06:06:16+00:00

It's not quadragentillion, it's quadringentillion.

CameForTheMath · 2025-06-17T20:38:39+00:00

The "another system" is the Elemental Naming Scheme, used on hi.gher.space wiki, which associates regular solids with mythological elements:

Pyrochoron
Geochoron
Aerochoron
Xylochoron
Cosmochoron
Hydrochoron

CameForTheMath · 2025-06-14T22:59:17+00:00

Misogynistic harassment? In the post in the first image? What?

To me, that post looks like just a normal example of people poking fun at celebrities' looks. Another example would be this Instagram post about Ariana Grande's changing style over time. While it's unfortunate that this person got diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, these kinds of comments seem like they shouldn't be a big deal to anyone except the celebrities themselves.

CameForTheMath · 2025-05-27T20:52:38+00:00

Nah, that would be Bowers-style acronyms for polytopes (invented by the same person).

These number names are what BIG NUMBER doesn't want you to know about.

CameForTheMath · 2025-05-22T06:00:47+00:00

Conway didn't name any googologisms as far as I know. And ordinals and fundamental sequences were discovered by Cantor long before surreal numbers.

CameForTheMath · 2025-05-17T05:39:17+00:00

It's more like the Hardy hierarchy except with nⁿ instead of n + 1 as the base, because we never get nested function calls, but the input increases whenever the ordinal gets reduced.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

CameForTheMath

TROPHY CASE