User blog comment:Vel!/FGH Gripe/@comment-5982810-20150325004329/@comment-5982810-20150326231116

No, I am saying that -- as an example -- the vague, unproven assertion "BH(n) is comparable to f_TFB(n)" should be replaced with "BH(n) eventually dominates all functions provably total recursive in Pi11-CA0+BI." The latter statement should be absolutely uncontroversial, since it is a well-defined statement that was actually proven by Buchholz and it's very, very googologically relevant. I highly doubt that you disagree that such statements should be incorporated into the encyclopedia.

Simultaneously, I'm advocating for chucking the first statement for reasons that I've already argued about (and I have more to come).

Yeah you completely missed my point. While what you suggested example is perfectly fine, you aren't going to remove things like "tetrational arrays are comparable to e0 in FGH" and not expect an uproar. You can call it a conjecture, or say that it's "believe to be" and you can even use the more formal language if you like. But you can't just drop it like a hat because currently that is our only measuring rod. Either offer a better measuring rod (either prove or disprove the claim, or provide stronger evidence one way or another), or leave the conjecture, but don't just say nothing at all. That will get many people pissed, and it will also leave newcomers with absolutely no way to even guess at what the powerful and weak functions are and what is better.