User blog comment:Ecl1psed276/BM2 Analysis - A Summary/@comment-30754445-20180709051740/@comment-30754445-20180709191720

Have you proven that the ruleset you've found is correct?

If not: Do you have at least substantial evidence for this claim (testing a bunch of expressions and not finding a counterexample is not considered "substantial evidence" in mathematics)?

And another thing:

Let's assume for the moment that the ruleset is correct. Do you have any reason to assume it always terminates? After all, in the past we assumed that BM1 and BM3 always terminate, and this was proven to be wrong. Why should we believe that BM2 is any different?

And let's assume for the moment that we know BM2 terminates. Do you have any reason to assume that the given ordinals are correct? I'm not even talking about proof. I'm talking about providing some sort of justification.

It seems to me that saying that (0,0,0)(1,1,1)(2,2,0) not only terminates but also goes beyond weakly compact cardinals, is nothing more than wishful thinking. I wonder if the people who did these estimations even understand how weakly compact cardinals work...