User blog comment:Bubby3/Hypothetical analysis of SAN second generation with BMS/@comment-35470197-20190406010732/@comment-35470197-20190407004027

Thank you for the replay.

> I think that is a really deep-seated problem that we often have, which is not answereing the questions you give us.

Well, first of all, some of the questions I listed up were not given by me. You were continuing ignoring questions by others before I came to this community. That is why I thought that the problem was so serious. Some of questions might not be so significant for you, and hence it is natural for you to skip them. However, but ignoring "almost all" questions does not solves the problem.

> I probally used Rathjen's standard OCF.

I asked the question because I doubted it. In Rathjen's standard OCF, there are occurence of Chapital Veblen Hierarchy which helped the author to estimate the strength. On the other hand, your analyses contain no occurrence of it. Ignoring such functions never gives precise step-by-step estimation.

> Several people alsmo made alalysises of functions with an unspecified OCF, and you didn't complain because we didn't spcifiy the OCFS.

Yes, I did. I came to this community less than one year ago. I could not comment all blog posts written before I came. Instead, I listed up ambiguous analyses in my blog posts. Then you can see that I am not referring only to you.

> I think that is just because BMS analysis are put under more scrunity than other analyses,

BMS and BEAF are very special. When beginners want to study BMS, they will look for known results. But tey will find "results" stating "BMS is stronger than TON", "BMS can be expressed as the countable composition of the catching function", "BMS goes beyond weakly compact cardinal", "BMS is the strongest computable function", and so on. Since there are too many such "results", it is very hard for them to find correct results. Therefore they will believe the "results". I have seen such incidents to occur many times.

> I essentially just paraphrased the definition of BMS, and I proved that the bad root ascending doesn't change anything in pair sequences.

The title of your blog post is "Proof of termination of pair sequence system". However, the contents contain no proof on the termination as we pointed out. Nevertheless, you ignored the suggestions. You could add an information that you failed the proof, but you did not. It looks like awful cheating, even though you are not intending it. Other googologists might misunderstand that you had already verified the termination.

Specifying what has already been done is very important for others. For example, if you stated that you verified the termination of something such as BMS, other googologists would possibly believe them, as they did for BM1. Then they would not check the termination again by themselves until problems will be found. So, such a declaration will rob others of opportunity to study more.

At least, the strength of Rathjen's standard OCF was misunderstood by many others, because many googologists stated "comparisons" on it. On the other hand, many of them do not even know the definition of Rathjen's OCF. Although it is recently known that UNOCF (if formalised well) does not work better than other known OCFs, sometimes I heard that UNOCF is stronger than Rathjen's OCF. Maybe it is not a problem only on UNOCF. It is related to KOCF. Deedlit, who misunderstood the definition of KPM and the contents of Rathjen's paper (and has never agreed his misunderstandings even though I pointed out with sources), stated the strength of his OCF without proofs, and other googologists just believed them.

> I fixed the mistakes you pointed out

It was not I. I just picked up them in order to explain that you never answered comments. I am not intending to say "you need to answer all comments", but just state "Ignoring almost all comments does not give a solution".