Is miraheze blocked? It also has a googology wiki and has some pages the same as the fandom one. I'll also privode a link.
Oof.
Yeah, but is it bigger than Graham's Number?
Thanks.
Yes. Both Fandom AND Miraheze are blocked.
No. But the actual TREE(3) obviously.
oof
Huh. Ok.
So not Fandom, and not Miraheze, are there any other ways to get to ANY Googology Wiki?
do you understand FGH and ordinals? or is knuth up arrow the only biggest thing you understand, also Googology Wiki (wikitide.org)
but it's not easy to find some pages
Ordinals I understand, and I THINK FGH, I just need to know what you mean by FGH. Also, that's blocked as well(the https://googology.wikitide.com/wiki/Main_Page one).
Also the wikitide one doesn't have enough pages, so it doesn't matter anyway. I'll just send images from the googology wiki with the information you need.
FGH is Fast growing hierarchy
Oh, then yes.
Ok.
That's fine. Just the stuff on TREE() function, and (IF YOU WANT) any related functions. How are you going to send it? Like the other pictures?
yes
Also things like TREE(3) don't have to be your only approach, but I guess if you understand it, it can be.
Ok.
I'm not saying it's going to be my ONLY approach.
ok, Also the only theorem provided is the Nash-Williams theory of trees, not kruskal's, so it might grow slower, but i'll still be impressed if you manage to make it.
TREE(n), which is made from the original statement of this theorem:
Hmmm... Ok, that's very interesting. So if, theoretically, I had BOTH the Nash-Williams & the Kruskal versions of the TREE() functions, I could label the Kruskal one as TREE(n) and the Nash-Williams one as TREE[n]? The problem would be mixing the 2. Plus, how would this be able to deal with the higher stuff like the SSCG() function, Busy Beaver, etc?
Busy Beaver is based off of turing machines. Also I think you should label them both as TREE(n). Just make the final block look like this (Although it doesn't actually compute TREE(n)):
Yeah, but how will I be able to differentiate between the 2?
Interesting.
Maybe just say NashTree(n) for Nash-Williams and TREE(n) for Kruskal
Or NWTREE(n) for Nash-Williams and KTREE(n) for Kruskal?
Ok! That's a better way to distinguish it in my opinion.