User blog comment:Ubersketch/A proposal for a standard/@comment-35470197-20190811012241/@comment-35470197-20190813031747

> If there's a simple criterion like the one I've just mentioned, we can list it along with the fundamental sequences.

Actualy, the ∈ relation is interpreted into a premitive recursive relation of expressions of standard form in a way completely similar to Buchholz's ordinal notation. Therefore it works, as long as we also list the algorithm to compute whether a given expression is of standard form or not. The algorithm is also the same as Buchholz's ordinal notation using G function. After writing them, the notation works well in this community, as long as people can apply the definitions without intuisions. I just meant that we need to write them without ambiguity. It is not a hard work, and hence I can write them down if this notation becomes an agreed-upon standard notation.

By the way, I am not good at teaching people in your way. I am always trying to tell them that they do not have so sufficient knowledge even on terminology which they are using that they can understand problems, but they just tend to reply "Ok, I will study it later. Then what is the answer?" or something like that. Maybe I should learn how to have them to understand that they need to study now before approaching the topics.