User blog:Edwin Shade/A Complete Analysis of Taranovsky's Notation

First, a disclaimer:

I'm sorry, but I really don't feel like I can understand all significant googological notations by the end of 2018. I'll try, but there's just so many of them and I believe I've gotten myself in too deep when I made that goal for the year of 2018. As PsiCubed2 rightfully pointed out, I haven't been the most focused on googological matters lately, and feeling like I have to always present something that will impress and make top blog post here is starting to become tiresome. I'd rather feel at ease writing blog posts, so I will. I know it sounds like I'm a quitter, but I sincerely don't believe I made a reasonable goal, which is a habit I often have, so I apologize if I got anyone's hopes up. I feel this is best for me though, to take it easier. I've decided on a compromise though, which is to understand at least one major googological notation, thus I've chosen Taranovsky's notation because being at the very threshold of my comprehension, it offers a challenge, yet at it's lower levels offers easy problems to work through. Perhaps if I devote my time to this one thing I'll crack the standing question of the strength of \(f_{C(C(\cdots C(\Omega_n2,0)\cdots,0),0)}(n)\), or Taranovsky's notation in general, (okay, probably not, but it would be nice).

So with out further ado, let's begin !

\(C(0,0)=1\)

[I'll do much more tomorrow, my Mother is requesting that I go to sleep at the moment.]