
0
Start with a givern collection of particles, and you can perform steps
Firstorder step: Replace each atom with \(10^{80}\) atoms.
n+1th order step, for \(n \geq 1\), count the number of atoms in the universe, call that number m, and repeat an n1th order step m times
Superstep. Count the number of atoms in the universe, call it n, and do an nth order step on n atoms
Bigger than G: Do a superstep on the observable universe (10^80 atoms) 64 times.
Read more > 
In Strong Array Notation DAN, it has the idea of nseperators. Tehy represent the 'level' of a seperator. For example, the grave accent and every seperator containing a double comma is a 1seperator. 2seperators are either double commas or seperators directly containing triplecommas. The level of a seperator is defined as follows. Clvl stands for comma level
Clvl of a comma is 0 and the Clvl of a grave accent is 1 Clvl(,...,) with n commas is n for n > 1
Clvl({a_{1}A_{1}a_{2}...a_{n1}A_{n1}a_{n}}}, where a's are numbers and A's are separators = Max(Max(Clvl(A_{1}),Clvl(A_{2})...Clvl(A_{n1}),Clvl(A_{n}))1,0). So the comma level of a separator is one less than the comma level of the separator with the highest comma level within that separator, and 0 if the the highesâ€¦
Read more > 
I am comparing the pDAN comapring rules and the Nested array notation comparing rules
Steps 1 and 2 in BAN just store entires, and SAN doesn't do that
Step 1 in SAN just reduces the seperator, and BAN doesn't do that when comapring seperators.
Step 2 in SAN just says what the varibles are and BAN does that with words.
Step 3 in BAN isn't mostly used expect when one or both of the seperators have 1 entry. If one has one entry and the other has multiple entries, it is the same as if their levels were higher. If both of them have 1 entry, the fourth line of that rule corresponds with going to step 4. This serves the purpose of step 3. The nesting level is useless after nested array notation because [1\2] has a higher lever but has a lower nestâ€¦
Read more > 
I started to analyze SolidusExtended CascadingE Notation here. However, I discovered that the analysis is wrong because I got everything beyond *{#,#,1,2} wrong. Here is a summary of my analysis.
{#,#,1,2} has level \(\varphi(1,0,0,0)\)
{#,#+1,1,2} has level \(\varphi(1,0,0,\omega)\)
&(1) has level \(\varphi(1,0,0,\omega^2)\)
has level \(\psi(\epsilon_{\Omega+1})\) Read more > 
My OCF is A(...) It can be represented as a binary thetalike function, or a unary psilike function
\(\psi_{A(0,1+n)}(m)\) in my system is equal to \(\psi_n(m)\), when n is a number.
A(1+n) corresponds to \(Omega_n\) execpt when n is a psi subscript
A(1,0) corresponds to the inaccessible cardinal
A(1+a,b) = I(a,b)
The reason why this function is so strong is that A(1,0,0) or A(B,0) has level Mahlo cardinal, not I(M,0).
Analogy: This function is to pDAN as theta function is to EAN.
Comparison with SAN
A(1,0) has level {1,,1,,2} or I A(1,1) has level {1,,1,,3} or I(1,0)
A(2,0) has level {1,,1,,1,,2} or I(2,0)
A(1,0,0) has level {1{1,,2}^{,,}2} or M
A(1,0,1) has level {1{1,,2}^{,,}3} or M_{2}
A(1,1,0) has level {1{1,,2}^{,,}1,,2} or M(1,0)
A(2,0,0) has level {1{1,,2â€¦
Read more >