User blog comment:Ecl1psed276/Star Notation Revamped! - Introduction and Analysis/@comment-35470197-20190424003652/@comment-35870936-20190424012301

"Do you have any evidence that your notations (containing WIPs) always terminate?"

Yes I do. HNAN (Part 4) will act very similarly to mEAN. Similar enough that if mEAN terminates, HNAN is pretty much guaranteed to terminate as well.

In fact, there was an infinite loop in an early draft of Part 5 of star notation. I modified the rules a bit (and actually made the notation weaker) but now, that infinite loop is gone.

When I compared the later parts of star notation to things like DAN or BMS, those were based off of some preliminary analysis that I had done.

I have a question for you. Why do you not doubt the termination of Dropping array notation and Taranovsky's C? There has been no proof of termination for either of those notations, but everyone just seems to take it for granted that they terminate.

For Part 5 and 6, I am not entirely sure that it terminates. Just like people are not entirely sure that DAN or Taranovsky's C terminates. There seems to be a double standard here. Why do you not doubt the termination of those notations, but request evidence or a proof of termination for mine? Or do you actually doubt the termination of those notations, but you just haven't expressed that doubt on this wiki?

And one more thing. Even if a notation is ill-defined or has an infinite loop, we can still analyze it as if it doesn't. That's how, for example, Hyp cos analyzed BEAF all the way up to its limit and determined that the limit of BEAF corresponds to s(n,n{1,,,1,,,1,2}2) in DAN. BEAF is ill-defined beyond tetrational arrays, but that doesn't stop us from analyzing how BEAF is supposed to work. That's also how people such as Nish (and myself, to some extent) analyzed Idealized BMS up to past the limit of DAN.