User blog comment:Ubersketch/Homomorphism between Cantor's normal form of finite degree and primitive sequence system/@comment-35470197-20190809223713/@comment-35470197-20190812084137

Thank you for the explanation. Then did the creator intend to have a "natural looking function" for each ordinal X with cof(X) = Ω, i.e. a map something like {X∈On | X = cof(X) = Ω} → {f:Y→Z|Y,Z∈On, Ω you'll need to explicitly define your "standard canonical notation" for the ordinals first

Of course, I know it. It is a very important point, which googologists working on UNOCF often regard as tiny requirements. Whenever I ask them how to determine the notion of standard forms, they always say something like "It is possible, but is difficult". Without an agreed-upon notion of standard forms, I have troubles when I point out inconsistencies of their "justifications" of UNOCF. For example, if I point out "according to your explanation of the correspndences from ordinals to expressions, X should be presented as both A and B, but we have A≠B as strings", they just say "they are the same". In order to avoid such a non-sense argument, I would like to know expansion rules which preserves standard forms, but nobody tells me.