Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googolplexian: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→[[Googolplexian]]: further reasons why this article is useless |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
** ''COMMENT'', it's not even the largest [[googol]] derived named number. (discounting kilogoogolplexian... [http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=googolplexplex%20-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&sa=N&tab=wg googolplexplex] is the same as the proclaimed googolplexian, but with more hits) [[User:132.205.15.43|132.205.15.43]] 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
** ''COMMENT'', it's not even the largest [[googol]] derived named number. (discounting kilogoogolplexian... [http://groups.google.ca/groups?q=googolplexplex%20-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&sa=N&tab=wg googolplexplex] is the same as the proclaimed googolplexian, but with more hits) [[User:132.205.15.43|132.205.15.43]] 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete.''' Not a real word. Not in dictionaries. Not in real use. Name invented for the purpose of record-breaking. But insufficiently researched, as this is the same thing as "googolduplex," which is another phony word. And smaller than a googoltriplex, which is of course one followed by a googolduplex of zeroes. ''''Nobody uses these.''' Scientists and physicists use exponential notation and metrix prefixes, and never need anything larger than about 10<sup>70</sup> or so. Mathematicians use various mathematical notations. These names are nerd games. They don't catch on because they serve no real purpose other than the vanity of those who create them. And this is not just floccinaucinihilipilification on my part. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 23:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
*'''Delete.''' Not a real word. Not in dictionaries. Not in real use. Name invented for the purpose of record-breaking. But insufficiently researched, as this is the same thing as "googolduplex," which is another phony word. And smaller than a googoltriplex, which is of course one followed by a googolduplex of zeroes. ''''Nobody uses these.''' Scientists and physicists use exponential notation and metrix prefixes, and never need anything larger than about 10<sup>70</sup> or so. Mathematicians use various mathematical notations. These names are nerd games. They don't catch on because they serve no real purpose other than the vanity of those who create them. And this is not just floccinaucinihilipilification on my part. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]] 23:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
||
:*It's not even very large compared to other ways of defining ridiculously [[large numbers]] such as [[Steinhaus-Moser notation]]. So I wouldn't say nobody uses these, these notations and concepts are studied by a few, but certainly not by the name of this article. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 19:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:32, 19 April 2005
- A Wikipedia neologism. Georgia guy 00:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Its claim, copied from the web site, that this is the "largest number with a name" is, further, false; as transfinite number, which names several larger numbers, explains. There is no evidence that this word is in use by anything other than the referenced web sites, a bunch of submit-your-own-article web sites such as here and Urban Dictionary, and a bunch of "Oh look at what daftness the web has come up with this week!" sites. It has zero Google Groups hits as a mathematical term. Even if it were a mathematical term, it is so contrived that it would belong in list of numbers rather than merit its own article. Delete. Uncle G 01:38, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)
- Delete. What Uncle G said. I was going to list this myself, but thought I would wait for a response on the talk page. This will do fine though. - Taxman 03:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- delete. neologism. and false claim, too. I say kilogoogolplexian is 100 times larger. Mikkalai 04:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Being a neologism is not fatal. But having no usage beyond a few enthusiasts is. And yeah, there is no "biggest number with a name". Still, if it were a popular folk believe that "Googleplexian is the largest number with a name" then it would rate an entry on that basis. Alas, that's not the case! Isaac R 20:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- COMMENT, it's not even the largest googol derived named number. (discounting kilogoogolplexian... googolplexplex is the same as the proclaimed googolplexian, but with more hits) 132.205.15.43 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Not a real word. Not in dictionaries. Not in real use. Name invented for the purpose of record-breaking. But insufficiently researched, as this is the same thing as "googolduplex," which is another phony word. And smaller than a googoltriplex, which is of course one followed by a googolduplex of zeroes. 'Nobody uses these. Scientists and physicists use exponential notation and metrix prefixes, and never need anything larger than about 1070 or so. Mathematicians use various mathematical notations. These names are nerd games. They don't catch on because they serve no real purpose other than the vanity of those who create them. And this is not just floccinaucinihilipilification on my part. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's not even very large compared to other ways of defining ridiculously large numbers such as Steinhaus-Moser notation. So I wouldn't say nobody uses these, these notations and concepts are studied by a few, but certainly not by the name of this article. - Taxman 19:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)