大數學 維基:方針

**用戶應遵守FANDOM的使用條款。違反使用條款的用戶將被封禁。**

例如，FANDOM的使用條款禁止以下行為：

* 辱罵、騷擾、威脅或者恐嚇其他Fandom用戶
* 發布或者轉發任何帶有淫穢、色情、誹謗、侮辱、暴力、褻瀆或者其它任何違反法律法規或傷害第三方權利的內容、以及任何包含憎恨同性戀人士、種族詆毀、侮辱宗教或者慫恿犯罪等內容
* 發布、上傳、轉發、分享或儲存未經許可或未經授權的廣告、垃圾信息以及任何未經授權的以廣告形式存在的信息
* 發布任何商業性廣告或潛在性的商業信息
* 試圖冒充其他用戶或者個人
* 發布任何違法或者未經授權的內容
* 在管轄範圍內違反相關法律法規，包括但不局限於違反版權法以及任何違法的在線行為和非法內容

FANDOM的使用條款請您也进一步同意：

* 在遵守相關法律法規以及使用條款的前提下合理適當地使用服務
* 不能上傳、發布、寄發郵件或以任何方式傳播包含軟件病毒的信息和資料以及任何專門用來干預、破壞、摧毀、限制功能的電腦程序碼、文件或程序，不能未經授權地非法嵌入或連接到任何電腦軟件、硬件以及電子通訊設備上
* 不能通過仿造標題欄、複製標識碼或其他任何行為冒充服務上內容的最原始出處
* 发布或传播任何欺骗性或引诱性的信息以获取其他Fandom用户的密码、帐户或任何私人信息

目的
--

這是一個學術維基、收集了所有的大數學的事實。有爭議的原創內容不要發布。為了避免寫錯信息、我們需要每個重要信息的有效來源。換句話說、我們不應該寫出無法輕易證明的無來源的非信息。

而且不得發布文不對題的內容。

### 什麼是有爭議的原創內容？

沒有有效來源的個人作品不適合本維基。我們原來的數、我們原來的函數、我們原來的用語、我們原來的分類、我們原來的猜測、我們原來的意見、我們原來的意見、個人的對話・回信、等等。我們僅從有效來源更正信息。如果我們想分享我們的個人內容、那麼我們應該使用我們的個人空間（用戶頁面和用戶博客）而不是主空間。

### 什麼是可靠來源？

什麼是有效來源？

* 如果我們寫了一篇聲明\(0=1\)的用户博客、它可以成為這個錯誤事實的有效來源嗎？
* 如果我們寫了一篇用户博客指出我們的數字大於葛立恆數、它可以成為這個無證事實的有效來源？

不行！　由於英文維基清楚地解釋了什麼是有效的來源、請檢查描述。例如，學術論文通常是很好的來源。另一方面、英文維基不是有效來源。

但是，許多舊文章是英文文章的中文翻譯、可能沒有有效的來源。如果您在文章中發現非來源信息、請通過添加有效來源來改進它！

這是英文維基的副本及其中文翻譯由谷歌翻譯。

>
> Citations
> 引文
> Googology Wiki is intended as a reflection of large number literature, online and offline. It is not the place to introduce new googology. The point of this rule is to make Googology Wiki a well-documented piece of work, *not* a place where people can dump their trivial salad numbers.
>
>
> Googology Wiki 旨在反映大量在線和離線文獻。 它不是介紹新的googology的地方。 這條規則的重點是讓 Googology Wiki 成為一個有據可查的作品，“不是”一個人們可以傾倒他們瑣碎的沙拉數字的地方。
>
>
> Good sources include:
>
>
> 好的來源包括：
>
>
>
> * Blog posts (see below)
> * Academic papers
> * Textbooks and other reliable print sources
> * Articles from reputable websites
> * Self-published books, papers, and websites. Googology Wiki doesn't have a conflict of interest policy, and it's acceptable to write articles about your own work.
>
>
> * 博客文章（參見 en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Blog posts）
> * 學術論文
> * 教科書和其他可靠的印刷來源
> * 來自知名網站的文章
> * 自己出版的書
>
>
> Bad sources include:
>
>
> 不良來源包括：
>
>
>
> * Wikipedia
> * Forums and other wikis (sister wikis of Googology Wiki, nlab, and so on). There are some exceptions such as c2wiki's famous ReallyBigNumbers page, where many well-known googologisms come from.
> * Private communications
> * Other pages within Googology Wiki
>
>
> * 維基百科
> * 論壇和其他 wiki（Googology Wiki、nlab 等的姐妹 wiki）。 有一些例外，例如 c2wiki 著名的 [1] 頁面，許多著名的 gogogologisms 都來自該頁面。
> * 私人通訊
> * Googology Wiki 中的其他頁面
>
>
> All this said, there is some leeway with original content. While Wikipedia considers itself a tertiary source, Googology Wiki is a *secondary source*. Our articles frequently offer commentary, analysis, and explanations of the source material (although it should be neutral and objective if possible). It's acceptable and common to discuss and analyze existing googology. Readers should note that such commentaries are not subject to academic review, in contrast to some of our sources.
>
>
> 綜上所述，原創內容還有一些餘地。 雖然 Wikipedia 認為自己是第三來源，但 Googology Wiki 是“第二來源”。 我們的文章經常提供對源材料的評論、分析和解釋（儘管如果可能的話，它應該是中立和客觀的）。 討論和分析現有的 googology 是可以接受和普遍的。 讀者應注意，與我們的一些資料來源相比，此類評論不受學術審查。
>
>
> Note that some other wikis such as "Gugology Wiki" may contain irrelevant sources.
>
>
> 請注意，其他一些 wiki，例如“Gugology Wiki”可能包含不相關的來源。
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> What can be a source?
> 什麼可以作為來源？
> If you want to add a source to a specific description, e.g. a definition or a statement, you need to cite **the first** source or a **peer-reviewed** source of the description. A personal website is not peer-reviewed, and hence can be a source of the definition of a number **only when** the website clarifies that the number is created by the author or the creator allows it as the first source. (See also: en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Reliability of a source, en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Personal website)
>
>
> 如果您想將來源添加到特定描述中，例如定義或聲明，您需要引用描述的“第一個”來源或“同行評審”的來源。個人網站未經同行評審，因此可以作為數字定義的來源“僅當”網站澄清該數字是由作者創建或創建者允許它作為第一個來源時。 （另請參閱：en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Reliability of a source、en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Personal website）
>
>
> For example, Bowers' website can be the first source of the numbers created by Bowers himself. On the other hand, if it included a description like "Goooogoooool is a well-known number defined as 10000000", then it should not be dealt with as a source of Goooogoooool. Similarly, Denis's website can be the first source of Denis's numbers, and hyp cos's website can be the first source of hyp cos's numbers. One typical mistake is to refer to Bowers' website as a source of your own number. Since Bowers' website is not the first source or a peer-reviewed source of your own number, the citation is invalid.
>
>
> 例如，Bowers 的網站可能是 Bowers 自己創建的數字的第一個來源。另一方面，如果包含“Goooogoooool 是定義為 10000000 的知名數字”之類的描述，則不應將其視為 Goooogoooool 的來源。同樣，Denis 的網站可以是 Denis 號碼的第一來源，hyp cos 的網站可以是 hyp cos 的號碼的第一來源。一個典型的錯誤是將 Bowers 的網站作為您自己號碼的來源。由於 Bowers 的網站不是您自己號碼的第一個來源或經過同行評審的來源，因此引用無效。
>
>
> Similarly, even if Bowers' website refers to a certain number, it cannot be a valid source of properties which are not written in the web site, because it is not the first source or a peer-reviewed source of such properties. Therefore the location to put the citation is quite important.
>
>
> 同樣，即使 Bowers 的網站引用了某個數量，它也不能是網站中未寫入的屬性的有效來源，因為它不是此類屬性的第一個來源或經過同行評審的來源。因此，引用的位置非常重要。
>
>
> Further, even if Bowers' website refers to a certain property, e.g. well-definedness or growth rate, it cannot be a valid source of the property unless the website is the first source, i.e. the website includes a proof of the property, because it is not a peer-reviewed source. It can just be the first source of the fact that Bowers wrote the statement.
>
>
> 此外，即使 Bowers 的網站引用了某個屬性，例如明確定義或增長率，除非該網站是第一個來源，即該網站包含該財產的證明，否則它不能是該財產的有效來源，因為它不是經過同行評審的來源。它可能只是鮑爾斯撰寫聲明的第一個來源。
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How to cite a source
> 如何引用來源
> If you want to cite a source, you need to put a link to the website by using the <ref></ref> command **right after** the information of which the website is actually the first or a peer-reviewed source. Here is a list of elementary mistakes repeated by users:
>
>
> 如果你想引用一個來源，你需要使用<ref></ref>命令**緊跟在**該網站的信息之後放置一個指向該網站的鏈接實際上是第一個或同行評審的來源。以下是用戶重複的基本錯誤列表：
>
>
>
> 1. To put an active link to a website as a source of a name of a number written before the <ref></ref> command, while it does not include the name. (Even if the website includes names of a number, it might not be a source of the other name of the number.)
> 2. To put an active link to a website as a source of a property of a number written before the <ref></ref> command, while it does not include the property. (Even if the website includes the name of a number, it might not be a source of properties of the number. Even if the website includes properties of a number, it might not be a source of the other property of the number.)
> 3. To put an active link to a website as a source of a name or a property of a number written before the <ref></ref> command, while it is not the first or a peer-reviewed source of the information. (Even if the website includes the information, it might not be unreliable. In order to ensure the accuracy and the reproducibility of a source, you need to refer to the first or a peer-reviewed source.)
>
>
> Some old pages use "External Links" sections to put sources. If you find a link which should be cited as a source, please move it to an appropriate location in an article, instead of marking it as a candidate of deletion. Of course, you can use "External Links" section to simply put an external link to a related page.
>
>
>
> 1. 將指向網站的活動鏈接作為在 <ref></ref> 命令之前寫入的數字名稱的來源，但它不包括名稱。 （即使網站包含某個號碼的名稱，它也可能不是該號碼其他名稱的來源。）
> 2. 將指向網站的活動鏈接作為在 <ref></ref> 命令之前寫入的數字的屬性的來源，但它不包括該屬性。 （即使網站包含一個數字的名稱，它也可能不是該數字的屬性的來源。即使該網站包含一個數字的屬性，它也可能不是該數字的其他屬性的來源。）
> 3. 在 <ref></ref> 命令之前將一個指向網站的活動鏈接作為名稱的來源或數字的屬性，雖然它不是第一個或同行-審查的信息來源。 （即使網站包含信息，也不一定不可靠。為確保來源的準確性和可重複性，您需要參考第一個或同行評審的來源。）
>
>
> 一些舊頁面使用“外部鏈接”部分來放置資源。如果您發現應該作為來源引用的鏈接，請將其移動到文章中的適當位置，而不是將其標記為刪除的候選者。當然，您可以使用“外部鏈接”部分簡單地將外部鏈接放置到相關頁面。
>
>
> When we cite a long reference, e.g. a book with 10 or more pages and a video with 1 or more minutes, then we need to clarify the exact location in the reference where we can find the cited description.
>
>
> 當我們引用長參考文獻時，例如一本有 10 頁或更多頁的書和一個 1 分鐘或更多分鐘的視頻，那麼我們需要在參考文獻中闡明我們可以找到引用描述的確切位置。
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How to fix a link to an invalid source
> 如何修復指向無效來源的鏈接
> If you find a cited description whose source does not include it, please fix the issue in the following ways
>
>
> 如果您發現引用的描述其來源不包括它，請通過以下方式解決問題
>
>
>
> 1. If the link to the source is alive and you know an alternative accessible source, please replace the original source by the alternative source. In order to find an actual source, it is good to look for the cited description at subpages or related pages of the original source.
> 2. If the link to the source is dead and you know an alternative accessible source, please mark the original source by {{dead link}} template, and add a link to the alternative source. (See also: en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Dead link)
> 3. If you do not know an alternative accessible source but the description is not doubtful, please remove the link, put {{citation needed}} template, and add a reason of the edit to the summary box. It is also good to ask other users (especially the one who added the description) an actual accessible source.
> 4. If you do not know an alternative accessible source and the description is doubtful, please remove the description and the link, and add a reason of the edit to the summary box.
>
>
> 1. 如果指向源的鏈接有效並且您知道其他可訪問的源，請將原始源替換為替代源。為了找到實際來源，最好在原始來源的子頁面或相關頁面中查找引用的描述。
> 2. 如果指向源的鏈接已失效，並且您知道另一個可訪問的源，請用 {{dead link}} 模板標記原始源，並添加一個指向替代源的鏈接。 （另見：en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Dead link）
> 3. 如果您不知道其他可訪問的來源但描述沒有疑問，請刪除鏈接，放入 {{citation needed}} 模板，並在摘要框中添加編輯原因。向其他用戶（尤其是添加描述的用戶）詢問實際可訪問的資源也很好。
> 4. 如果您不知道其他可訪問來源並且描述有疑問，請刪除描述和鏈接，並在摘要框中添加編輯原因。
>
>
> If you do not know how to fix the issue, please feel free to ask other users at the corresponding talk page.
>
>
> 如果您不知道如何解決此問題，請隨時在相應的討論頁面詢問其他用戶。
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reliability of a source
> 來源的可靠性
> As an exception, sufficiently "reliable" websites can be sources even if they are not the first sources or peer-reviewed sources. For example, Cantor's Attic was dealt with as a reliable website until it has gotten closed. Therefore we should clarify the borderline:
>
>
> 作為一個例外，足夠“可靠”的網站可以成為來源，即使它們不是第一來源或同行評審的來源。例如，Cantor's Attic 在關閉之前一直被視為可靠的網站。因此，我們應該澄清邊界：
>
>
>
> 1. Allam's website was used by himself as a sources of his own numbers and his fake results on known numbers. It can be the first source of his own numbers, but can never be a source of those fake results unless he specifies reproducible explanations.
> 2. 2000 steps analysis was referred to as an evidence of several fake properties of functions in this community. It deals with unspecified functions and includes many errors. Therefore it can never be a source of results on actual (specified) functions.
> 3. Very big numbers is frequently used as a source of illion numbers. It just states that the website is based on the author's "knowledge", which is obviously unreliable. Since the author is not the creator of them, it should not be a source. For such traditional names of numbers, there is no "first source", but peer-reviewed publication can be a reliable source. For example, online encyclopedia which is freely editable is not appropriate, because it is not peer-reviewed by definition.
> 4. Numberpedia is used as a source of numbers by Garrett Wilkinson. Since the encyclopedia is not freely editable and is created by the person, it can be the first source. (But there is an issue on the notability. See its talk page.) Also, it includes many known numbers, but it can never be a source of them.
>
>
> 1. Allam 的網站被他自己用作他自己的數字和已知數字的虛假結果的來源。它可以是他自己的數字的第一個來源，但永遠不能成為那些虛假結果的來源，除非他指定可重複的解釋。
> 2. 2000 步分析被稱為該社區中幾個虛假功能屬性的證據。它處理未指定的函數並包含許多錯誤。因此，它永遠不能成為實際（指定）功能的結果來源。
> 3. 非常大的數字 經常被用作數百萬的來源。它只是說該網站是基於作者的“知識”，這顯然是不可靠的。由於作者不是它們的創建者，因此它不應該是來源。對於這種傳統的數字名稱，沒有“第一來源”，但經過同行評審的出版物可以是可靠的來源。例如，可自由編輯的在線百科全書是不合適的，因為它沒有經過同行評審。
> 4. Numberpedia 被用作 numbers by Garrett Wilkinson 的來源。由於百科全書不可自由編輯並且由個人創建，因此它可以是第一來源。 （但在知名度上有一個問題。參見其討論頁。）此外，它包括許多已知數字，但它永遠不能成為它們的來源。
>
>
> We clarify that we do not intend to blame those great websites. We are just mentioning to them as websites which cannot be reliable sources in an academic sense.
>
>
> 我們澄清，我們不打算責怪那些偉大的網站。我們只是向他們提及在學術意義上不能成為可靠來源的網站。
>
>
> Also, dead links cannot be counted as reliable sources for new articles. We can allow dead links only when they were alive and reliable when they were cited. See en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Dead link for more details.
>
>
> 此外，死鏈接不能算作新文章的可靠來源。我們只能允許死鏈接在它們被引用時還活著並且可靠。有關詳細信息，請參閱 en:Googology Wiki:Policy#Dead link。
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Personal website
> 個人網站
> Several users create articles on their own numbers with citation to their own websites. It is allowed as we clarified above, because their own websites can be the first sources of their own numbers. However, they are not usually peer-reviewed, and hence might include many mathematical errors. Googology Wiki allows articles on ill-defined numbers in the current policy, and hence the existence of such errors cannot be a reason of the deletion. We can just explain the fact that they are ill-defined and the reason of the ill-definedness, instead of deleting the articles.
>
>
> 一些用戶在他們自己的號碼上創建文章，並引用他們自己的網站。正如我們上面澄清的那樣，這是允許的，因為他們自己的網站可以成為他們自己號碼的第一來源。然而，它們通常沒有經過同行評審，因此可能包含許多數學錯誤。 Googology Wiki 允許在當前政策中包含關於不明確數字的文章，因此此類錯誤的存在不能成為刪除的原因。我們可以只解釋它們定義不明確的事實和不明確的原因，而不是刪除文章。
>
>
> One problem is that the creators might silently change the definitions by updating their own websites as if those errors did not exist from the beginning and edit the corresponding articles to insist that they are well-defined. In that case, their own websites are not reliable sources, because quoted information might drastically vary. Therefore in order to avoid losing the reproducibility of a source, it is better to clarify **the retrieval date** if the users tend to update their own websites when other users point out errors. It is also good to make use of snap shots or web archives if the users continue to cheat. See en:Googology Wiki:Guideline#Why do we need retrieval date? for details.
>
>
> 一個問題是，創作者可能會通過更新他們自己的網站來默默地更改定義，就好像這些錯誤從一開始就不存在一樣，並編輯相應的文章以堅持它們是明確定義的。在這種情況下，他們自己的網站不是可靠的來源，因為引用的信息可能會有​​很大差異。因此，為了避免失去來源的再現性，如果當其他用戶指出錯誤時用戶傾向於更新自己的網站，最好明確“檢索日期”。如果用戶繼續作弊，利用快照或網絡檔案也很好。有關詳細信息，請參閱 en:Googology Wiki:Guideline#Why do we need retrieval date?。
>
>
> Another problem is that statements such as the size of their own numbers in their own websites are not usually verified by others. We should always keep in mind that the reliability and the validity of a source depends on a description which we want to refer. Their own websites can be the first sources of their own numbers, but are not necessarily reliable sources of statements on them. Therefore when we refer to statements in their own websites, it is better to clarify that they are not peer-reviewed by writing something like "the creator intends/expects that the number is greater than Rayo's number" rather than "the number is greater than Rayo's number".
>
>
> 另一個問題是，諸如自己網站中自己號碼大小之類的陳述通常不會被其他人驗證。 我們應該始終牢記，來源的可靠性和有效性取決於我們想要引用的描述。 他們自己的網站可以是他們自己數字的第一來源，但不一定是關於他們的可靠聲明來源。 因此，當我們在他們自己的網站上引用聲明時，最好通過寫諸如“創建者打算/期望數字大於 Rayo 的數字”而不是“數字大於 雷奧的號碼”。
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dead link
> 死鏈接
> Dead links cannot be counted as reliable sources for new articles. We can allow dead links only when they were alive and reliable when they were cited. There are several relied sources whose links have been dead:
>
>
> 死鏈接不能算作新文章的可靠來源。 我們只能允許死鏈接在它們被引用時還活著並且可靠。 有幾個可靠來源的鏈接已失效：
>
>
>
> 1. Aarex Googology[dead link] (It has a web archive.)
> 2. GOOGOLOGY[dead link] (It has a redirect to a new website.)
>
>
> 1. Googology[dead link]（它有 .com/site/aarexgoogology/ahcannl/p1 網絡檔案。）
> 2. GOOGOLOGY[dead link]（它有一個重定向到 一個新網站。）
>
>
> If the link to a source is dead, please put {{dead link}} template in order to clarify the inaccessibility instead of putting the deletion tag or removing the citation. If we simply remove the description with a dead link to a source, other users will lose an oppotunity to put a new source. In addition, if you know another accessible source, you can expand the page by replacing the dead link by a link to the source or simply add the link. For example, a web archive of the original source is allowed in this wiki.
>
>
> 如果指向源的鏈接已失效，請放置 {{dead link}} 模板以澄清不可訪問性，而不是放置刪除標籤或刪除引用。 如果我們簡單地刪除帶有死鏈接的描述，其他用戶將失去放置新來源的機會。 此外，如果您知道另一個可訪問的源，您可以通過將死鏈接替換為指向源的鏈接來擴展頁面，或者只需添加鏈接。 例如，在這個 wiki 中允許原始源的網絡存檔。
>
>
>
>

版權
--

用戶不得侵犯他人的人權。例如、用戶不得侵犯版權。請不要非法發布受版權保護的作品（文章、圖片、動畫、etc）。

請不要違反License。一個典型的錯誤是非法複製License作品。例如、FANDOM的許多維基中的許多文章都是在CC-BY-SA License下編寫的。如果您通過無視License的限制來竊取內容、您就違反了它。