User blog:P進大好きbot/Ill-definedness of BIG FOOT, Little Bigeddon, and Sasquatch

I wonder why BIG FOOT, Little Bigeddon, and Sasquatch are often dealt with as well-defined large numbers. If you take a good look at the defintions, then you will find many problems.

It is seriously awful to continue announcing ill-defined large numbers as "valid googolisms", because it seriously prevents us developping googology. Say, no one can compare a well-defined number and an ill-defined number, and hence it prevents us creating new largest numbers as long as we commit such ill-definedness party, too. That would be why few coins a larger (non-joking) number.

Personally, I think that my large number is sufficiently (not naively) bigger than them even if the definitions are fixed, but there is no mathematical way to compare it with ill-defined numbers before they are actually fixed.

This is quite similar to the statements like "Bashicu Matrix System is the strongest computale system in the world" or "UNOCF is much stronger than standard OCFs".

Here I summarise the problems.

BIG FOOT
BIG FOOT lacks the declaration of precise axioms. The creator just stated that he uses "reasonable" axioms, but as I pointed out in the comment of his blog post, there is no reasonable choice of axioms which allows us to regard BIG FOOT as a well-defined number. Namely, the well-definedness of BIG FOOT conflicts reasonable axioms. I could not understand why he wrote such an intuition-based description in the definition using formal logic, which should be handled with by absolutely precise manner.

I think that the creator does not have an idea to fix this problem at all, because he ignored my question again when he was active in this wiki.

Therefore BIG FOOT is obviously ill-defined unless the precise (conjecturally consistent) axioms.

Geddons
On the other hand, the choice of axioms for Little Bigeddon and Sasquach are more clearly specified (but still a little ambiguous). Instead, there are several undefined stuffs which play important roles in the definitions, as I pointed out in the comments of her blog post and her another blog post.

Probably it is not so difficult for the creator to fix this problem so that they become well-defined. At least, they are ill-defined before fixed. Accepting such ill-defined numbers as the "largest valid googolisms" is not good, from the view point which I explained in the beginning.