User blog comment:Ubersketch/A proposal for a standard/@comment-35470197-20190811012241/@comment-39541634-20190812041646

Ah... classic Deedlit.

They guy has a consistent difficulty giving credit when credit's due.

I remember once, on the LNF, I started a discussion about creating a standard notation for googological numbers. He proposed a notation that's a minor variant on my Letter Notation arrays, without a word of where he took that from.

To makes it even worse, this happened something like a week after I asked the people there for feedback on that precise same notation, and Deedlit himself replied with a pretty scathing review. Funny that is was good enough for him to steal, eh?

As for having a standard notation for ordinals:

We should make an effort for the systems to be consistent with one another. For example, using Madore's Psi up to the BHO and then switching to Buchholz's system is bound to cause confusion. Is Psi(Big Omega) equal to zeta_0 or epsilon_0? Similarly, starting with Madore and then switching to Deedlit's variation, we'll get confused on whether Psi(0) is epsilon_0 or gamma_0.

I remember that for a very log time I was confused about how Psi(Omega_w) is the limit of Psi(Psi_1(Psi_2(...))) until I realized that these are two completely different notations. So yes, this is important.