Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googolplexian: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:22, 17 November 2005

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete (deleted by User:Taxman):

14:06, 23 Apr 2005 Taxman deleted "Googolplexian" (consensus delete per VFD)

--Death phoenix 18:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googolplexian

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)
- No, there probably is not largest number with a name, since you can keep combining the methodolgies to create larger ones, but Graham's number is (from the article) often described as the largest number that has ever been seriously used in a mathematical proof. - Taxman 19:43, Apr 19, 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)

Delete. Neologism, and not in popular use. The claims of "largest named number" are certainly false and imply that the number really has no purpose other than to be invented to be big. Josh 04:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete as false infromation, silly neologism and mathcruft. (I just always wanted to say mathcruft to go along with fancruft and etc.) DreamGuy 09:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, made up, someone had too much time on their hands, etc. etc. as above. Master Thief Garrett 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-waaaa
+This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below[[Template:Vfd top|.]] '''This page is no longer live.''' Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. <br>The result of the debate was '''Delete''' (deleted by [[User:Taxman]]):
+*14:06, 23 Apr 2005 Taxman deleted "Googolplexian" (consensus delete per VFD)
+--[[User:Deathphoenix|Death]][[User_talk:Deathphoenix|'''phoenix''']] 18:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
+===[[Googolplexian]]===
+*A Wikipedia neologism. [[User:Georgia guy|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'''. [[User:Uncle G|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. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 03:08, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
+*'''delete'''. neologism. and false claim, too. I say kilogoogolplexian is 100 times larger. [[User:Mikkalai|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! [[User:Isaac Rabinovitch|Isaac R]] 20:49, 17 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)
+**No, there probably is not largest number with a name, since you can keep combining the methodolgies to create larger ones, but [[Graham's number]] is (from the article) often described as the largest number that has ever been seriously used in a [[mathematical proof]]. - [[User:Taxman|Taxman]] 19:43, Apr 19, 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)
+*'''Delete'''. Neologism, and not in popular use. The claims of "largest named number" are certainly false and imply that the number really has no purpose other than to be invented to be big. [[User:Joshua Oreman|Josh]] 04:23, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' as false infromation, silly neologism and mathcruft. (I just always wanted to say mathcruft to go along with fancruft and etc.) [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 09:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''', made up, someone had too much time on their hands, etc. etc. as above. [[User:Master Thief Garrett|Master Thief Garrett]] 22:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
+:''This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. '''Please do not edit this page'''[[Template:Vfd bottom|.]]'' </div>