# User talk:Ben Standeven

## Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Sam [Spade] 04:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick note of thanks for your cleanup and additions on Astrodynamics. Good job. JesseW 19:01, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

## Joshua

The version I was working on during protection is at Historicity of Jesus/. Its got a bit stalled, due to my involvement in quite a lot of other talk pages. CheeseDreams 16:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ive almost finished a section now at Jesus and syncretism CheeseDreams 15:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

## WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, Mpolo has opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but Mpolo thinks the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) CheeseDreams 17:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Putting this link here will undoubtably attract Slrubenstein and Sam Spade and company to the link destination. Nethertheless, would you like to comment?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams

## Request

Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams You can comment on the talk page, or in "evidence" CheeseDreams 00:55, 11 December 2004

## Pathos

They have just started another revert war at Historicity of Jesus CheeseDreams 14:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

## To Do list

Could you add these two pages to your to do list, there is some extremely POV editing going on by TBSDY

• 1 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there - [1]
• 2 - and evidence of TBSDY's extreme POV editing there - [2] , [3], and most of all [4]

Also note that the critical books removed are the more respected of the group, but the ones left in more dubious. The same goes for trying to tie all of the aspects to people like Hislop, Freke, and Gandy. Also note that Freke & Gandy's book was regarded by the Daily Telegraph as "an erudite and well researched book stuffed with controversial ideas", and so inserting only the CNN viewpoint is a heavy and POV attempt to discredit it.

Here are some links you might find useful for commenting on TBSDY

Thanks. Good luck. And don't give in. And just to check what is going on

I've just seen this. Please, feel free to review my edits! Also be aware that this is most likely CheeseDreams commenting, however she has been blocked for a day for editing articles related to Christianity (and thus violating the ArbCom order) and then blocked for a week for using someone to edit for her as a proxy. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and also I suggest that you carefully look at the edit history. I did not remove the book reviews that talks about the "erudite and well researched books (etc)" comment. That was another user, not related to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

## Jesus

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [5], [6]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article.Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Why did you say "The result of the debate was keep" in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tiamat (Planet) but you then you redirected the concerned article. [7]]. User:Denni put the article up for deletion based on his claim that it is "nonsense". Satori said: "Google search for "Zecharia Sitchin Tiamat" returns 1320 hits. So that's why I'm not sure if it qualifies for patent nonsense." and User:Wikiacc and I voted for keep. Delete lost and there were only 2 comments suggesting redirection. Can you please explain how you decided to redirect rather than just keep.--AI 3 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)

My impression is that votes for "keep" and "redirect" are pretty much synonymous; so when I noticed that the concensus was to keep, I decided to redirect on my own. If this planet Tiamat is an important figure in Sitchin's theories, I suppose you could undo the redirect. Ben Standeven 5 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, you made a fair decision. I have not really studied Sitchin's works, so I will mostly leave the editing to contributors who are more knowledgeable. However I am under the impression that Tiamat as a planet is an important topic in Sitchin's theories. For me, the dispute over this subject turned out to be an experiment in good faith (imho) which helped document some tactics used by Wikipedia contributors who are unfairly refusing contribution of information contradictory to their own POV.--AI 5 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)

## Historical Jesus article

Hi Stephen, I would like to update the Historical Jesus article. Please go to my User:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus page and look at what I have so far. Please comment on it concerning accuracy and NPOV, and provide other suggestions for improvement. I noticed you seemed to be the author of the bulk of the existing article, so I especially seek your input. Thanks for your help. --Peter Kirby 16:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

## Noahide Laws in Category: Jewish Christian topics

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics

## Freemasonry

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ardenn 22:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Ardenn 22:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

## Freemasonry page :P

I noticed that your someone interested in the freemasonry page. If your gonna edit that page you need to be 100% sure that you follow all the wikipedia rules to a T, or some of the editors will try to get you banned immediatly. The big one, is make sure that you do not revert more then 3 times a day, if you violate it you will problary get posted up on the 3rr board within 10 minutes. A revert simply means changing something that someone recently changed, back to how it was before they changed it. It's not only 3 reverts on the same section either, someone can change one line in the article, which you revert, then someone changes the line back again, and you revert it, and then a 3rd person adds a link that you remove, and all of asudden you have a 3rr ban.

It's great to see new people editing the masonry article since I went on my little break. Please don't get discouraged by the intence wikilawyering going on there, and the warning tags, and messages that you will see pop up on your discussion page. If you have any questions feel free to ask me :p Seraphim 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

## Freemasonry Edits

Ben, were trying to cut the article down in size. There are sub-articles for things you're adding back in. The article is already longer than it should be. OzLawyer 19:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

## Thanks for the citations

Just wanted to say thanks for adding those citations to Starfleet ranks and insignia, this is exactly the sort of thing I'd hoped would be added when I first raised the issue on the talk page back in June. :) Bryan 15:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

## Second Temporal Dimension

Thanks for major work upgrading the article at Second Temporal Dimension. I appreciate your unbiased efforts to improve that article. Since the article has been almost totally re-written, I think the status of AfD'ing could be reconsidered; however, I am still wondering if we should just merge to String theory or F-theory articles and create a sub-section. Thanks again for your efforts and keep the citations coming! Nimur 13:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

## Possible deletion of "consensus science" page

Sorry for the late notice, but I have recently nominated the "consensus science" page for deletion. For my arguments on this, please see that article's discussion page and its deletion page. Deletion policy says that I should tell frequent contributors to the page about the proposed deletion, and I only just saw this today.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Dicksonlaprade 16:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

## Footnote in "Large countable ordinals"

You added a pointer to a footnote to Large countable ordinals, but I do not see the actual footnote. Did you do it correctly? JRSpriggs 04:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

## Cranks

Nice work with the style improvements at Crank (person)! Let's see how long they last... Henning Makholm 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

## Starfleet ranks and insignia

I have restored the enlisted block and modified the linked enlisted ranks article. I hate reverting other people unless they are vandalizing and I really want to evade a revert war. I have also altered the enlisted ranks article.

My main rationale is that Starfleet ranks and insignia should be a mere gallery of all rank insignias in a comparative manner and linked articles explaining the subject.

--Cat out 11:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

## list of species in fantasy fiction

id like to hear your reason for removal of many things in that article. for instence, high elves are just as much a race rather then a species in warhammer as it is in the lord of the rings. why then would you remove the mention warhammer but not middle-earth?--Lygophile 01:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

## well..

you may save yourself and other people a lot of work if you discuss such a thing on the added talkpage first. only mentioning the original source of a species in a list of species in fantasy fiction is rather stupid, since hardly any species in fantasy is not based on or directly a similar species in mythology or folklore, who based most of those species with creatures and people they found on adventures they were unfamiliar with. you really think the orc in the lord of the rings was tolkiens creation?O.o--Lygophile 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

## Rv your edit to "E (mathematical constant)"

Hi, Ben!

I noticed you removed a formula from this article with the edit comment "second formula is wrong". This is to let you know I'm putting the formula back because it is correct. In fact, the first and second forms of the cf appearing in the article are equivalent in the sense that every successive truncation of each one yields the same rational convergent, so that they do in fact converge to the same irrational number e.

Have a great day!  ;^> DavidCBryant 22:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Ben!

There's no need to apologize. I had been thinking that part of the article could do with a bit of cleanup anyway, so I added a few words of explanation (and a link to another article) which will (hopefully) make things a bit clearer for other readers. So thanks for prodding me to do something I should have done yesterday! DavidCBryant 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

## Hypercomputation / Super-Turing Computation

Ben, please do get rid of Super-Turing computation. I entered into lengthy discussion with Kevin Baas on Talk:Hypercomputation and am sadly convinced that he is a crank beyond redemption. -- pde

## Your edit to Christopher Michael Langan

Thanks for finding a much better quote for the footnote in Christopher Michael Langan. There had been some contention regarding its inclusion and finding a more appropriate quote was an excellent solution. --NightSky 14:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

## Your edit to Essjay controversy

Ben, in this edit to Essjay controversy, you removed an Internet Archive link, with the comment, "the archived userpage does not make the cited claims."

The citation was where the asterisk is in the following text: "Although Essjay, who was also employed at Wikia, had claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law as a tenured professor at a private university, he was in fact a community college dropout from Kentucky.* The discrepancy in credentials ..."

The archived userpage contains the following:

I am a tenured professor of theology at a private university in the eastern United States; I teach both undergraduate and graduate theology. I have been asked repeatedly to reveal the name of the institution, however, I decline to do so; I am unsure of the consequences of such an action, and believe it to be in my best interests to remain anonymous.

I hold the following academic degrees:

• Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies (B.A.)
• Master of Arts in Religion (M.A.R.)
• Doctorate of Philosophy in Theology (Ph.D.)
• Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD)

Clearly, that does "make the cited claims" that Essjay "had claimed to hold doctoral degrees in theology and canon law as a tenured professor at a private university".

Do you agree? If so, would you please consent to restoring this essential reference? -- BenTALK/HIST 00:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; I was confusing it with the link to his Wikia page. I've put it back. Ben Standeven 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! -- BenTALK/HIST 00:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

## Please have a look at discussion page of anti de sitter space article

I made a comment regarding your edit 05:44, 29 December 2005. Any comments would be very helpful. Best regards 83.253.30.214 11:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits of the AdS article! It is much better now. Pierreback 13:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

## Spam in Mehdi

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mehdi, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mehdi is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mehdi, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You caught me on a bad error. Thanks for the changes. However, I don't believe that 2DFAs with a stack cannot parse CFGs: see Talk:Read-only Turing machine to discuss. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

## Aren't we a pair? (unordered)

Hi Ben: I noticed your edits to Jensen hierarchy -- I started the article b/c it was on the requested list, but I really only knew enough to know what books to crib from -- it needs work, to be sure, and thanks for taking an interest. I'll see if I can add any more, and welcome any help you can offer. Thanks! Zero sharp 01:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

## Kardashev Scale

Hi, recently the Kardashev scale entry has gone through some major reverts, I'd like to talk about the reinstatement of the material. I've looked around and have seen that you've made some major contributions to the article and are interested in it's progress. I feel we need to talk about the reverts and reinstatement and talk about whether either are justified. Talk:Kardashev scale If you could help or add your two cents I'd really appreciate it. Thanks--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

## Kardashev scale

I added antimatter yesterday, I just basically cut and pasted it from the anti-matter article... but I was thinking about deleting the energy figures and just leaving the orders of magnitude since all the energy figures would still be detailed on the anti-matter page... I think doing this might make the section on anti-matter more readable, be more consistent with the other changes I made to future development and be better suited to a non-professional audience. what do you think?--Sparkygravity (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On your suggestion of trimming the antimatter section, I think it's a good idea. There's way too much detail there now, even after I moved the Tsar Bomba stuff to the intro. [If you follow Marskell's suggestion, you would need to put it in the new section, of course. Probably it should be attached to the discussion of Type I] Ben Standeven (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
ok that's cool, as far as the moving of the Tsar Bomba, I think it's fine, but may be removed later by folks who don't see it's point, I'm not sure how we could stress it's importance to those already familiar with figures of power and energy. Also the conversion of the watts (over time) into (joules) energy is not OR, since it's units, but the statement that ' Earth-level power reception produces this much energy roughly every two and a half seconds. ' looks like Original Research or it is begging for a[citation needed]. So I think we might want to reword it, or support it somehow.--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I've changed it all to megatons; that way the paragraph isn't cluttered by exponents, and the power usage of the hypothetical Type I civilization is just a unit conversion. Ben Standeven (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

added my own work page please see User:Sparkygravity/Kardashev_Scale and tell me what you think.--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Really it's only been you and me and user:beland who's added stuff lately to the Kardashev scale, I imagine you've read that I dispute the edits, we need more input on the talk page though. Could you read over everything and tell me what you think?--Sparkygravity (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

## Hoff Summers

Good for you Ben. Mind you, I did alread point to Hoff Summers, didn't I? ;)

I won't bore you with the details, but there are feminists who do not accept her as a feminist. It all gets complicated. There are passionately uncompromising feminists who will still admit the misandry, and certainly embrace patriarchy as a pejorative, using androcentric when desiring to make more objective points.

Anyway, nice to have you around. I particularly appreciate you checking out the Nair. I reference-checked so much stuff when going through the list of "matriarchies" debunked in the literature, I finally got tired and stopped looking for refs for the -lineal and local stuff. Mind you, as you may have discovered already, sure enough, like Britannica et al say, the original ethnologists really do document patriarchy, despite how some attempted to reinterpret this during a certain period in recent Western history.

Stephen Goldberg noted at one point (I think in print, but it could have been online) that he'd actually got tired of researching each new society proposed as matriarchal. After doing this a couple of dozen times and always finding "tribal chiefs" and so on, he felt the most important thing he could communicate was the methodology of checking the primary sources. Published secondary sources can, and do, misrepresent these. However, he did say journal articles were much more reliable as secondary sources than books. Books are copy edited by publishers for purpose of sales. Journal articles are peer-reviewed, for academic accountability. But there are journals and there are journals. If you don't know already, there's a Wikiproject writing up articles on journals, so we have independent info regarding their reliability. As I'm sure you can imagine, this is an immense project.

PS Sparky's a great guy, glad to see you're working with him. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

## Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit)

So you're saying that they are different levels, that is to say that the levels are set-up differently?

Regardless, even if the levels were different, many games have other versions that are very different from the main version, but not notably so - Over the Hedge for the GBA versus the console versions, for instance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

## Merger of the RPG lists

I suggest soliciting discussion next time before merging articles, perhaps using the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} templates. See the discussion, here. SharkD (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

## "Growth factor"?

Can you explain what the term "growth factor" means in your new article titled infra-exponential? (There's an article titled growth factor, but it's about something else.) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

## AfD nomination of Timeline of fictional future events

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Timeline of fictional future events. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional future events. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

## AfD nomination of Out-of-place artifact

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Out-of-place artifact. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

## You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

## Pebble game

Just for the record: do you oppose replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} in this article? --bender235 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

## Obscure categories in OOPArt

Hi! I'm having trouble understanding what "Unorthodox interpretations of artifacts" and "Formerly orthodox interpretations of artifacts" means in this context... --Againme (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

## Merge discussion for Variant Dungeons & Dragons games

An article that you have been involved in editing, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. zorblek (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

## Your edit to List of NP-complete problems

After this edit the list includes planarity testing, but that article is about a problem which has been solved in linear time. What's going on there? 67.162.90.113 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks; it looks like I was confusing planarity testing with "rectilinear planarity" testing. Ben Standeven (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

## Ichthus: January 2012

 ICHTHUS January 2012

For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Hi. When you recently edited List of role-playing video games: 1992 to 1993, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Eye of the Beholder, The Bard's Tale and Krondor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of role-playing video games: 1992 to 1993, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ogre Battle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Ettin, Troglodyte, Lizard Man, Sea Wolf, Roper and Spectre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of role-playing video games: 1988 to 1989, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Satomi Hakkenden and Run-and-gun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plural quantification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Characteristic function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of role-playing video games: 1990 to 1991, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Arcus and Toei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

## What is Rudimentary Function Arithmetic?

Hi, in an edit back in 2008, you introduced "Rudimentary Function Arithmetic to the Wikipedia article on ordinal analysis. But all the results on Google to the term refer to the Wikipedia article. So can you clarify what Rudimentary Function Arithmetic is, and give a source for it having proof-theoretic ordinal omega^2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.59.20 (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the ${{a_k}}$ orgen in the second formula?Ofir michael (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)