I created this list

Hello! I created this list to sort the numbers in order of magnitude and tell which numbers are listed in this wiki. Could you help me expanding this? Cloudy176 06:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

I like :) Maybe we should list numbers according to their class, as defined by Robert Munafo. FB100Ztalkcontribs 21:44, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
Or we could list it like this
100 ~ googol
googol ~ googolplex
googolplex ~ giggol
Ace45954 01:36, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
We could always list it like this (some numbers would have to be moved around a bit and the "block numbers" ex. googol ~googolplex could be moved around):
Ace45954 23:40, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

List collapsed, this is quite long

100 ~ googol

Googol ~ googolplex

Googolplex ~ Googolgoogolplex

Googolgoogolplex ~ Gagol

Gagol ~ Boogol

Boogol ~ Generalplex

Generalplex ~ Ultatri

Ultatri ~ Bongulus

Bongulus ~ Meameamealokkapoowa Oompa

Meameamealokkapoowa Oompa<

The reason being that some very large exponent numbers say fzgoogolplex can be larger than some of the smaller tetrated numbers.

Ace45954 23:40, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


Aarex 14:57, July 1, 2012 (UTC)


Hi guys. Could we avoid using subpages to name the different lists? How about something like "List of googologisms (5-6 linear)"? FB100Ztalkcontribs 16:41, September 7, 2012 (UTC)


In this edit, the definition of zootzootplex was removed apparently because it didn't match the number definition. According to my sources, zootzootplex is the exponential factorial of googolplex, which is indeed googolplex^(googolplex - 1)^...^3^2^1. FB100Ztalkcontribs 05:45, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

mathjax usage

Should we minimize the usage of mathjax in this list? -- I want more clouds! 13:46, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I'm in doubts about MathJax. On the one side: it makes expressions look more beautiful. However, MathJax has slow loading. What more valuable: aesthetics or practice? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 14:02, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Table form

I found that this list has been changed to table form. To make the source code short, Template:NumberList might be useful. (Or should we make a shortcut of it?) --I want more clouds! 05:01, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Is it actually necessary to use table format for this list? The old bulleted list is better. -- I want more clouds! 15:31, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

For table formatting, I don't see technical differences. The thing that I want to propose is changing all MathJax to LaTeX, since typesetting math tooks a while to load. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 15:38, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, now MathJax loads slowly for me as well. I think most of these can be converted to plaintext (with some superscripts and subscripts). I will do the change today, or a bit later. -- I want more clouds! 07:51, November 2, 2013 (UTC)
I removed almost all MathJax and now visiting the page becomes more pleasant. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 11:49, November 2, 2013 (UTC)

List of googologisms by (author)

How about making separate lists of numbers by individual authors, such as List of googologisms by Jonathan Bowers and List of googologisms by Sbiis Saibian? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 01:27, January 20, 2014 (UTC)

A new measuring stick?

On this edit, Ikosarakt removed Category:Higher array notation level saying that "BEAF shouldn't be a measuring stick". (The category was re-added since.) If BEAF shouldn't be used, then what should be used as a measuring stick? The sections of this list (and the categories) could be renamed to use the new one instead.

By the way, here's some more suggestions about the sections:

  • Since "Exponentiation level" numbers are actually iterated-exponentiation level, the section (but not Class 4 and before) should be merged into the Tetration level section.
  • Probably merge 5-6 and 7+ entry linear array notation level?
  • Split Higher array notation level into two or more sections.

-- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 13:28, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

Higher array level should be split to "epsilon-zero to gamma-0 level" and "gamma-0 to ψ(Ω_w) level". Other than that I like your ideas. Cookiefonster (talk) 13:34, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

I believe there should be categories:
  • Physically interpretable functions
  • Primitive recursive functions
  • Conway's chained arrow level functions (w^2)
  • Recursive array-level functions (w^w)
  • Kirby-Paris hydra level functions (e(0))
  • e(0)-SVO level functions
  • SVO-LVO level functions
  • LVO-BHO level functions
  • Buchholz hydra level functions Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 15:02, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

There aren't a lot of googolisms between SVO and LVO, so I think it should instead have SVO to psi(W_w) and psi(W_w) and beyond.Cookiefonster (talk) 15:25, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

So I've thinking of the section renaming for a while, and I think it's time to do it. Here's my proposal:

  • ...(class 0~4 remain unchanged)...
  • Tetration level (class 5, class 6~9, class 10 and higher)
  • ...(up-arrow ~ tetration array remain unchanged)...
  • Binary-phi level (epsilon level, zeta and higher)
  • Gamma-0 to ψ(Ω_w) level (trinary-phi, up to SVO, up to BHO, up to ψ(Ω_w))
  • ψ(Ω_w) and beyond (includes uncomputables, merges the last 3 current sections)

Alternatively, we could consider ending the second-to last section at BHO instead of ψ(Ω_w), since BHO is easier to type. Any thoughts? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 04:41, March 10, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should use ordinals at all here unless we can find a formal justification for "ordinal levels" for googological systems -- vel! 23:26, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
I think uncomputable functions should have their own section. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 12:32, March 11, 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no good reason to merge them. -- vel! 02:50, March 12, 2015 (UTC)


@Cookiefonster Oops I just got Grand Boowa and Great Big Boowa Mized up..... Sorry..... :( Antares 3^^^3 01:07, February 23, 2015 (UTC)

This must be fixed

BEAF at legiattic arrays and beyond isn't well-defined, so we must modify the scales used here (e.g. get rid of BEAF). We also should modify articles of Bower's ill-defined number to make people know that they aren't well-defined, then remove them from here (or make a special section) Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 18:32, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Please... Obviously, nobody here cares... But it's important! At least can I remove Bower's ill-defined googologisms from this list? I'm kinda effraid of modifying sections ("Beyond Legiattic Arrays" doesn't make any sense f.e.) because I don't know what would happen i.e. to the index at the beginning and I don't want this page to be messy because of me :V Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 18:28, July 9, 2015 (UTC)
I think that defining the steps based on an ill-defined notation is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot compare Bower's numbers to anything else, and it's probably best to split them off based on the limits of various popular notations, i.e. (after$ \gamma_0 $) splitting it based on the limit of Hyper-E's latest extension ($ \phi(\omega,0,0) $), Hollom's notation's limit (for the first stage, not subscripts/<>$ LVO=\theta(\Omega^\Omega) $) and the limit of BAN ($ \psi(\Omega_\Omega) $, alternately SCG at roughly$ \psi(\Omega_\omega) $), and beyond and uncomputable. ~εmli 00:35, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

Linked from Reddit

Although I'm not sure somebody could make an incremental game that goes that far. (For some reason, I was unable to edit this talk page on mobile.) -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 07:16, September 8, 2015 (UTC)


i think this should be renamed to "list of large numbers" or even "list of numbers" -- vel! 08:26, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. KthulhuHimself (talk) 11:45, October 26, 2015 (UTC)

Skewes' number

I changed “First Skewes' number” and “Second Skewes' number” to “First Skewes number” and “Second Skewes number”, respectively. If my English is correct, there can be no premodifier referring to Skewes’ number like first or second because Skewes’, written with an apostrophe, is a possessive form. To say “first Skewes’ number” is like saying “first my number”. It should be first Skewes number (Skewes number as a compound), Skewes’(s) first number or first number of Skewes (but the latter two variants are uncommon). -- IvanP (talk) 15:32, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, why is the limit of HAN so low here? Is this Hyp Cos's analysis of BEAF? Billicusp (talk) 19:39, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

New sorting categories?

Since BEAF is ill-defined above e_0 level, can we replace the new ones? Here is the new list:

  • (Lower levels unchanged)
  • Tetrational array notation level
  • Cantor's ordinal (FGH) level
  • Feferman–Schütte ordinal level
  • Ackermann ordinal level
  • Small Veblen ordinal level
  • Large Veblen ordinal level
  • Bachmann-Howard ordinal level
  • Takeuti-Feferman-Buchholz ordinal level
  • Beyond TFB level
  • Uncomputable numbers

AarexWikia04 (talk) 00:43, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Also, we should probably have better definitions of when lower levels begin and end. For example, how would I tell an up-arrow-notation-level number from a chained-arrow-notation-level number using the current system? LegionMammal978 (talk) 01:33, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Class -1

Hi. I have an idea. Can I make section named Class -1 where would be numbers that are less than \(10^{-1}\) ? I'm asking because I created bunch of numbers for this class. Unknown95387 (talk) 09:58, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

The class system we use is adopted from Robert Munafo's classes. Since he doesn't define a class -1, I don't think we could use "class -1" as the section's name. Here's my alternative suggestion: call the numbers below 1 "subunary numbers". -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 13:17, August 22, 2017 (UTC)

Redirect page

Fivebee2 (talk) 16:18, February 9, 2018 (UTC) I think we should redirect deleted page Numbers to List of googolisms.

That's a good idea. Did it. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 17:22, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

Lineus? Lineans? Enalineans? Lineangig?

Is it okay if I can add my own googolisms to the list? PlantStar/Alpineer 16:57, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

No. Read the wiki's policy guides on original content. If you have some original conted to add to the wiki,do it as a blog post!Boboris02 (talk) 18:47, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

And once I've done it as a blog post, what next? PlantStar/Alpineer 02:09, February 24, 2018 (UTC)

Did I do something wrong?

I removed the ill-defined googolisms and lower bounds. 12:22, March 14, 2018 (UTC)


As I pointed out here, BIG FOOT and Little Bigeddon are not confirmed to be well-defined at all. Therefore the description in the article is wrong. Little Bigeddon is not "the largest valid googolism". Accepting a number which is not confirmed to be well-defined as the largest number seriously prevents others to develop googolism, because the lack of the precise definition avoids us comparing a new large number with it.

p-adic 22:07, December 3, 2018 (UTC)