User blog comment:Boboris02/MBOT/@comment-30167082-20161218151736/@comment-30754445-20161219213329

That's like saying that it isn't difficult to create powerful functions by addition and then cite Rayo(n)+1 is an example. Technically it's true, but this is hardly an interesting observation.

But looking deeper there's an interesting "secret" here regarding the way that strong googological functions work. The only reason a notation like Bird Arrays is so strong, is that it already relies heavily on the trick of diagonalization. It basically does the "largest number expressible in X symbols" over and over, many times and in very complex ways.

So just diagonalizing again once by saying "the largest number expressed by Bird Arrays in X symbols" is basically the googological equivalent of saying "I'll take you number and add 1". It isn't just weak. It is completely un-interesting, because it doesn't add anything new.

(I'm sure LittlePeng was fully aware of everything I've written here. I'm taking this opportunity to shed some light on these topics for the benifit of the less experienced googologists here)