User blog comment:P進大好きbot/New Issue on Traditional Analyses/@comment-39541634-20190825100759/@comment-35470197-20190826074043

Actually, specifalists would not have a problem if people did not misuse notations or did not mix distinct notations. But if many of them do so without specifying OCFs, then it is really hard to infer what they are using. My point is that although it is difficult to avoid misusing notations, it is easy to specify what they are using. If they simply specify OCFs, it is relatively easy to point out errors. Moreover, I guess that there are few specialists who can infer OCFs from correct analyses in the current googology, and that many analysts have stopped studying an actual OCF because they believe that it is much useless than UNOCF.

> it is now easier to warn newcomers about these pitfalls,

Right. I am doing so. But when people try to study analysis, they will be in trouble that they do not know which analysis is based on actual OCFs. In order to stop polluting the circumstances for newcomers to learn OCFs in an appropriate way, I think that we should try to specify OCFs. If UNOCF continues to ruin the circumstances, it is not so easy to help newcommers to avoid this trouble.

I guess that when you pointed out simiar problems, then people just could not understand the points seriously, because the notions of well-definedness and computability are not easy to understand for the majority. Therefore I think that it is a good time to notify the problems to all. At least, I feel that many Japanese googologists started to understand the problem well this year.