User blog comment:P進大好きbot/New Issue on Traditional Analyses/@comment-39541634-20190825100759/@comment-35470197-20190825111754

> Don't expect the kiddos to stop making absurd claims just because you've hit them with the above revelation.

Well, I got surprised that Simply Beautiful Art, who introduced himself as a mathematician, stated that such a notation can be a "computable notation". It seems still worth arguing, if he actually is an honest mathematician and he has some evidence on what he states, although I think that it is false.

> This isn't the first time you've given this example, so it got me curious

Right. Similar to the statement "Rathjen's standard OCF satisfies ψ_{Ω_1}(ψ_I(0)) = ψ_{Ω_1}(Ω_Ω_…), I have heard several times the statement "Buchholz's OCF satisfies ψ_0(ψ_1(ψ_2(ψ_3(0)))) = ψ_0(Ω_3)".

> if they did, they've mixed two different notations, of-course

I have heard several times the excuse "I thought that Buchholz's OCF is the same as UNOCF below ψ(Ω_ω)".