Talk:googology

Note: googology seems to have some currency on part of Usenet as a reference to a crazy Frenchman who used that as a derogatory way of referring to geology, but the cites aren't independent. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–April 2016

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

googology and googolplexian

The study of large numbers and one with a googolplex zeroes. 2602:306:3653:8920:C159:1712:7479:32E9 22:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added three quotations for googolplexian. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

All three quotations given seem to describe a quite non-literal sense, something like "(informal) an unspecified very large number". Are there any known uses of the word literally meaning "one with a googolplex zeroes"? (I mean, I'm sure it's used that way all the time in popular math stuff, I'm just not sure if it ever passed into "durably archived" territory.) 85.141.147.151 01:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added two quotes for googology. Kiwima (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• googolplexian is RFV passed; the existing sense at googology has been RFV failed, but I added a new sense to the entry that i was able to cite. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a science about large numbers, not about Google! Why revert? https://googology.wikia.org/wiki/Googology Clarity1997 (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I explained why when I reverted – the term is used that way, it has quotes and it already passed a gruelling verification process. If there is an additional sourced sense, you are more than welcome to add it. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)