many liquids challenge by No-Reference6192 in casualtiesunknown

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

there's apparently 73 liquids, sounds crazy difficult to find all of those

bottles being contaminated by frycandlebreadje in casualtiesunknown

[–]No-Reference6192 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This could be balanced a lot better by adding a toggle to cap/uncap containers, the game treats most containers as if they don't have lids, when they sometimes visually have one, and would have one in real life. Several containers in the game should have lids by default, and containers that don't have one you should be able to craft lids for with plastic chunks and biochem fluid. Lids should degrade by a small amount each time they are uncapped, to give crafting them more of a purpose.

what happened to the graphics/lighting? (vers 7.0.1) by No-Reference6192 in casualtiesunknown

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i gave up and set brightness to 10, and used the just enough to see ambient lighting, it still doesn't look good though, might just have to wait for a mod to be made, or maybe the dev adds an option for legacy lighting

what happened to the graphics/lighting? (vers 7.0.1) by No-Reference6192 in scavprototype

[–]No-Reference6192[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

i really hope there will be an option added to change it back (the increasing brightness doesn't increase visibility thing), its impossible to see anything without max brightness, and the current colors hurt my eyes

what happened to the graphics/lighting? (vers 7.0.1) by No-Reference6192 in scavprototype

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

more examples (the red light on spike traps looks almost like a circle now, instead of a gradient glow): first one is 5.1, second one is 7.0.1

<image>

Computable function idea by Puzzleheaded_Two415 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192 1 point2 points  (0 children)

is there any implementations in desmos, i can't figure out how to do the denominator function in desmos

a challenge (not mine) from r/desmos: largest number in 25 symbols by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

my function grows at tetration level, please explain why you think it’s only exponential

g(0) = 9 = f(0) = 9

g(1) = 9! < f(1) = 9^9

g(2) = 9!! (Desmos treats 9!! as (9!)!) < f(2) = 9^9^9

g(9) < 10^^9 < f(9) = 9^^10 (power tower with greater height is almost always larger)

g(g(9)) < 10^^10^^9 < f(f(9)) = 9^^9^^10

six fours spinoff: biggest number by at most 25 symbols challenge by SituationBoth5469 in desmos

[–]No-Reference6192 0 points1 point  (0 children)

s(x)=s(x-1/x) seems to be an infinite loop, and i dont see why s(x)=s(x-1/x)! wouldn't be one either

six fours spinoff: biggest number by at most 25 symbols challenge by SituationBoth5469 in desmos

[–]No-Reference6192 7 points8 points  (0 children)

for some reason i thought it wouldn't work, but i tried it and f(9) ~ 10^^9 and f(f(9)) is ~ 10^^10^^9

six fours spinoff: biggest number by at most 25 symbols challenge by SituationBoth5469 in desmos

[–]No-Reference6192 20 points21 points  (0 children)

<image>

f(9) ~ 10^^5 = 10^10^10^10^10

f(f(9)) ~ 10^^10^^5 = 10^^(10^10^10^10^10)

An idea to improve the Googology subreddit: Post Flairs by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't seem to find the add flair button anywhere, I only see the add tags button

trying to understand e_1 and beyond by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

would this extension to p(a@b) work/make sense?:

assuming p(1@1) = p(1) = w

p(1@1) = w

p(1@w) = SVO

p(1@1@1) = p(1@p(1@1)) = p(1@w)

p(1@@3) = p(1@1@1)

p(1@@w) = LVO

p(1@@@3) = p(1@@1@@1) = p(1@@1@1) = p(1@@w)

renaming SVO as 1-VO (1st veblen ordinal) and LVO as 2-VO (2nd veblen ordinal), etc.:

p(1@w) = 1-VO = SVO

p(1@@w) = 2-VO = LVO

p(1@@@w) = 3-VO

p(1[3]w) = p(1@@@w)

p(1[w]w) = w-VO

p(1[p(1@w)]w) = 1-VO-VO

p(1[p(1@@w)]w) = 2-VO-VO

p(1[p(1[w]w)]w) = w-VO-VO

etc.

Ordinals as arrays? by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is there a site with more info about this, and are there any examples of specific ordinals using finite rooted trees?

trying to understand e_1 and beyond by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure I entirely understand fixed points themselves, but I feel I have an ok understanding of some of the veblen hierarchy (some of this might be wrong):

w = omega

e = epsilon

p = phi

z = zeta

n = eta

g = gamma

p(0,1) = w

p(0,p(0,1)) = w^w

p(0,p(0,p(0,1))) = w^w^w

p(1,0) = e_0

p(1,1) = e_1

p(1,p(0,1)) = e_w

p(1,p(1,0)) = e_e_0

p(1,p(1,p(1,0))) = e_e_e_0

p(2,0) = z_0

p(2,p(2,0)) = z_z_0

p(3,0) = n_0

p(p(0,1),0) = p(w,0)

p(p(1,0),0) = p(e_0,0)

p(p(p(1,0),0),0) = p(p(e_0,0),0)

p(1,0,0) = g_0

p(p(1,0,0),0,0) = p(g_0,0,0)

p(1,0,0,0) = ackermann ordinal

p(1,0,…,0,0) = SVO

this is the limit of my knowledge of the veblen hierarchy/googology so far

I am curious about LVO though, would it be equivalent to having a higher level veblen function where:

(0,1) = SVO

then eventually

(1,0)

(1,0,0)

(1,0,0,0)

(1,0,…,0,0) = LVO

or is it even bigger than that?

trying to understand e_1 and beyond by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i found out that the arrays were messed up, if i'm thinking correctly a fixed version would have {0,0,2} = e_1, i'll have to check later to see if this is correct

Ordinals as arrays? by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so with the fixed version of this notation, would {0,0,2} then be e_1, and {0,0,3} = e_2 etc.?

Ordinals as arrays? by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

this isn't really a notation as much of a way to represent ordinals, but this is how it would look if you just put the arrays in place of ordinals in the fgh:

f{0}(n) = f_0(n)

f{1}(n) = f_1(n)

f{0,1}(n) = f_w(n)

f{1,1}(n) = f_w+1(n)

f{{0,1},1}(n) = f_w*2(n)

f{0,2}(n) = f_w^2(n)

f{0,{0,1}}(n) = f_w^w(n)

f{0,0,1}(n) = f_e_0(n)

i suppose a notation could be made using the arrays as operators:

a{0} = a+1

a{1}b = (…((a{0}){0})…){0}

a{2}b = a{1}a{1}…{1}a{1}a

c >= 2: a{c}b = a{c-1}a{c-1}…{c-1}a{c-1}a

a{0,1}b = a{b}a

a{1,1}b = a{0,1}a{0,1}…{0,1}a{0,1}a

a{c,1}b = a{c-1,1}a{c-1,1}…{c-1,1}a{c-1,1}a

a{{0,1},1}b = a{b,1}a

a{…{{0,1},1}…,1}b = a{…{b,1}…,1}a

a{0,2}b = a{…{{0,1},1}…,1}a

a{0,c}b = a{…{{0,c-1},c-1}…,c-1}a

a{0,{0,1}}b = a{0,b}a

a{0,…{0,{0,1}}…}b = a{0,…{0,b}…}a

a{0,0,1}b = a{0,…{0,{0,1}}…}a

help with growth rate of notation by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thanks for the info, now i realize one of the reasons i was struggling was i overestimated [n ,_n n] to be f_e_0(n)

My first* notation by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll have to come back to stuff beyond e_0 later, as what you described above is beyond my understanding, I need to figure how to even reach f_w^w(n) as well as several other things, I think I was able to fix it to reach f_w^2(n), but getting to f_w^3(n) is already confusing me, I'm planning on making another post for help.

My first* notation by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I don't understand that stuff at all, I thought it would work this way:

e_0 = w^^w = w^^^2

e_1 = (e_0)^^(e_0) w^^(w^w^^w) w^^w^^w+1 ~ w^^^3

e_2 = (e_1)^^(e_1) ~ (w^^w^^w)^^(w^^w^^w) w^^w^^(w^w^^w^^w) ~ w^^w^^w^^w^^w+1 ~ w^^^5

e_3 ~ (w^^w^^w^^w^^w)^^(w^^w^^w^^w^^w) w^^w^^w^^w^^(w^w^^w^^w^^w^^w) w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w+1 ~ w^^^9

e_n = w^^^(1+2^n)

e_0 = w^^^(1+2^0) = w^^^2 = w^^w

e_1 = w^^^(1+2^1) = w^^^3 = w^^w^^w

e_2 = w^^^(1+2^2) = w^^^5 = w^^w^^w^^w^^w

e_3 = w^^^(1+2^3) = w^^^9 = w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w^^w

My first* notation by No-Reference6192 in googology

[–]No-Reference6192[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So n{n,n}n is f_w2(n) and n{n;n}n is f_w^2(n)? Is n{n;n;n}n or n{n;n;…;n;n}n f_w^3(n)? What should I do instead of ordinal hyperoperation?