User blog comment:Vel!/FGH Gripe/@comment-73.235.97.150-20170621165840/@comment-30754445-20170621201936

I think he is a bit extreme.

This is a wiki and not an academic journal. And there is plenty of stuff which is obvious without the need of rigorous proof. Yes, we should demand solid reasoning for any claim people make. But requiring a peer-review level proof for every small thing is rediculous.

For example, any person who is well-versed in Saibian's system, can easily verify that it grows at the exact rate he claims it grows. As he said himself, his system is not just "comparable to the FGH", it uses the exact same recursion structure. I can tell you right now that his tetheratoh (sp?) is not just an epsilon-0 level number, but very close to fe0(100). Without following the thing more carefully, it could be fe0(98) or fe0(102), but it isn't difficult to see that fe0(100) is - indeed - in the right ballpark.

Of-course, it would be nice to have proofs for such things. But saying "we aren't allowed to mention these established facts until they are proven" is just silly.

Besides, if you really really want to make this wiki more professional, than how about we start by telling people to stop making thousands of stubs for every number that appears on every website of our community members? If the mainspace is supposed to be a serious resource on googology then we'll need to make quite a few changes around here... and demanding academic-level proofs for obvious claims is hardly the most pressing issue at the moment.