Nothing OCF: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content added Content deleted
RhubarbJayde (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Nothing OCF is a weak OCF, defined by CatIsFluffy. It is similar to many other OCFs in definition, but omits addition. Therefore, the growth rate is much, much slower. It is believed to correspond to a weak version of Extended Buchholz's function, also defined by omitting addition, and that it catches up to the ordinary version of EBOCF by EBO. However, no proof of either of these claims has been given and...") |
CreeperBomb (talk | contribs) (Undo revision 691 by Cobsonwabag (talk)) Tag: Undo |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Nothing OCF is a weak [[Ordinal collapsing function|OCF]], defined by CatIsFluffy. It is similar to many other OCFs in definition, but omits addition. Therefore, the growth rate is much, much slower. It is believed to correspond to a weak version of [[Extended Buchholz's function]], also defined by omitting addition, and that it catches up to the ordinary version of EBOCF by [[Extended Buchholz ordinal|EBO]]. However, no proof of either of these claims has been given and |
Nothing OCF is a weak [[Ordinal collapsing function|OCF]], defined by CatIsFluffy. It is similar to many other OCFs in definition, but omits addition. Therefore, the growth rate is much, much slower. It is believed to correspond to a weak version of [[Extended Buchholz's function]], also defined by omitting addition, and that it catches up to the ordinary version of EBOCF by [[Extended Buchholz ordinal|EBO]]. However, no proof of either of these claims has been given and they remain open questions. |
||
Latest revision as of 16:53, 25 March 2024
Nothing OCF is a weak OCF, defined by CatIsFluffy. It is similar to many other OCFs in definition, but omits addition. Therefore, the growth rate is much, much slower. It is believed to correspond to a weak version of Extended Buchholz's function, also defined by omitting addition, and that it catches up to the ordinary version of EBOCF by EBO. However, no proof of either of these claims has been given and they remain open questions.