User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Please Help me on study of Pair Sequence System (2-rowed Bashicu Matrix System)/@comment-30754445-20180813155654/@comment-35392788-20180817140408

@PsiCubed

Now, a reply to the rest of your post :

"But not everyone agrees"

Those disagreements are nothing more than minor quibbles. You're really giving the impression that you think people who disagree with you are just "minor quibbles".

I don't see either you or P-bot having any qualms about cooperating with the general foolishness that's going on around here. Yes, your own ideas are often more rigorous, but you're still actively participating in a collective process of "reasoning" which is utterly rediculous. '''There's nothing I can answer here, you're flat out calling what we're doing stupid. I can't argue with that.'''

It is this process, rather than your specific personal contributions, that I'm refusing to accept as legitimate. I mean, obviously, people are free to do whatever they want... But I'm refusing to accept this kind of "work" as actual googology. '''You aren't a holy authority of what should be accepted in googology or not, as far as I'm aware. Reminder : most people here have not even been to college, let alone graduated. For most of us, this is a hobby, not an important activity that we have to be super-duper-truper serious about.'''

And I'm not alone in this. I don't recall Deedlit or Hyp Cos or LittlePeng or any of the other math pro veterans ever showing any interest in this kind of "work". Ever wondered why? '''Because we don't think formality is as important as them. I (and probably a bunch of other people) think that unambiguity is more important than formality. Also, Deedlit, Hypcos or LittlePeng at least have the decency to not scream at how foolish we are everytime we make a blog post about it.'''

There's also an increasing number of relative beginners who understand the absurdity of the situation and refuse to participate. I have an utmost repsect for these people, who follow simple common sense instead of joining the hype. '''Or maybe they just find it too hard or too weird for them ? People who act like you do don't necessarily share your views.'''

Now, you want the BMS thing to be taken more seriously? Tell your fellow men to shape up and stop fooling around.

"Also, if someone wrote a blog post that shows the proof that, for example, BM1 (0,0)(1,1)(2,1)(3,1)=Γ_0"

Yes.

Because:

(1) We all agree on the ruleset of BM1, which are quite simple.

(2) That claim actually has a decent chance of being true. '''Are you saying that all claims we make about BM2 have no chance of being true ? According to your own logic, you shouldn't give more credence to that claim than any claim on BM2.'''

So yes, I'll give such a post a chance.

Of-course, if I see that the reasoning is already sloppy on line 3, I won't bother to continue further. I won't require that the post be perfect and 100% error-free, but it would need to show some serious effort.

"BM2 (0,0,0)(1,1,1)=U(Ω_ω), will you read it?"

Without some serious prep work, no.

First of all U (as in UNOCF) is ill-defined. No, an attempt at a definition by a person how doesn't know the basics of how OCFs work, doesn't count. And if you use ψ instead of U, then you better state explicitly which version of the ψ-function you're using (Madore? Bucholz? Deedlit's?) and remain consistent with that choice. Already answered this.

Secondly, there's no agreed-upon rule-set for BM2. There are guesses and there are conjectures but no agreed-upon rule set. So you'll need to:

(1) state explicitly which rule-set you are refering to. Most of us refer to Nish's ruleset for BM2.

(2) make sure that you're following these rules and only these rules in your proof.

Keep in mind that actually calling it "BM2" would be a bad idea... unless you can also prove that the rule-set you've given is exactly equivalent to the computer program given for BM2. '''Which is devilishly hard, because computer programs can't usually be written down as a set of English sentences; I know that for a fact. Two nested loops are already hard enough to explain in English, but a complex structure of nested loops, some of which are at the same level ? In my opinion, that's harder than proving termination assuming some given ruleset.'''

So it will probably be easier to just label your conjectured ruleset with new index (say - BM2.5) and then proceed to prove that "BM2.5 (0,0,0)(1,1,1)=ψ(Ω_ω)" '''I'm pretty sure BM2.5 already exists. There are like 7 different versions of BM2'''. As I side note, you'll probably want to start by proving that (0,0)(1,1)(2,2) reaches the BHO, given the rule-set of your choice. If nothing else, it would make your OCF-based expressions less ambigous, because there's only one accepted way to write ordinals below the BHO (unless you use UNOCF, which you really really shouldn't I'm really trying not to call you names right now, but you're basically flipping off anyone who doesn't fully understand the set-theoretic background behind large cardinals, in my opinion).