User blog comment:Tetramur/BEAF above SVO - comparison/@comment-5150073-20200219121934/@comment-35470197-20200219230541

> I don't think so. Approach by Bowers shows how many entries array has, but approach by Saibian shows how structure is built.

Right. To be more precisely, Bowers has never explained how structure is built. Sorry for the confusion.

Then could you write down an explicit formalisation as a computable notation? As far as I understand, Saibian just explained general properties of "structure", which is unformalised as Saibian explains.

Please remember that in order to create a computable notation, you need to specify: At least, neither of them is given, right? Namely, Saibian has not fully formalised an alternative notation for BEAF, hasn't him? Please correct me if I am wrong.
 * 1) The recursive set of all valid expressions.
 * 2) The recursive function which gives an expansion rule.

Also, to clarify, I should say that Bowers is the only person who can define BEAF, because he is the creator. Saibian's alternative formalisation does not give the definition of BEAF, but gives the definition of an alternative notation. Even if Bowers agrees that several explanations fit Bowers' intension, it does not mean that Bowers agrees that it is the final definition, which is stable forever, unless Bowers clarifies so. So please distinguish them.