User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Does anybody here know where I can have serious googology questions answered?/@comment-35470197-20181114222222/@comment-30754445-20181115113713

This has nothing to do with "behavior of japanese". Why are you dragging this discussion into such unpleasant territory?

The guy who created that faulty proof didn't do anything bad (and even if he did, it would be rediculous for you to apologize on his behalf just because you happen to be from the same country). He simply made an error somewhere, which is quite a common occurence when dealing with topics of such complexity.

The only problem is that his entire proof was written in a language that makes it impossible to verify it for 90% of us. Again, nothing he or you need to apologize for. It just means that if there are any mistakes, it might take years for anyone to notice them... which is precisely what happened.

"Although learning Japanese is much easier than learning large cardinals, it is more difficult than proving the termination of a specific version of PSS for googologists who know OCFs as well as you, I guess. It was not so difficult, but was just tiresome. Therefore concerning PSS, it might be more quick to prove the termination by yourself :D"

Which I've already done (please read the above blog post again).

Unfortunately, as I've been trying to tell you, a proof without independent peer verification is worth nothing. Especially when my knowledge of OCFs is less perfect than what you seem to imply (either sarcastically or seriously - I can't seem to fiigure out which).

Hence my question of where can I post my work and get quality feedback.

And speaking of my knowledge of OCFs (or lack of):

"I know the FS up to \(\psi_0(\Omega_{\omega})\) with respect to Buchholz's \(\psi\)-function, but I guess that you know better than me because I am a relative beginner compared to you."

Had I "known better", I wouldn't have asked the question I've asked in 1a, would I?

Please remember that googology and set theory are two distinct (though related) area of study. While you are most certainly right that you're "a relative beginner" when it comes to googology, I would still happily refer to you when it comes knowledge about bona-fide set theory.

So if you do know the FS's of Buchholz Psi, I'm all ears. That would be a most satisfactory answer to question 1a.

"Anyway, since there seems to be one or two mathematicians active in Japanese googology community other than me, such a mistake could occur."

Precisely.

I'm pretty sure that if Emlightened and Deedlit and Hyp cos and Vel! and myself could have an actual peak at that proof, one of us would have spotted the error sooner.

"I did not know other Japanese by the reason above (newbie). I started to study googology under my googological supervisor just one year ago, and hence I know few about what occurred before that."

You have a "googological supervisor"? Whoa! That's cool. Who is he?

"For me, I wrote the proof in Japanese because there are more googologists in Japan who are interested in my proof than here. Do you know a person here who would read a proof other than you"

Yes, I know many such people.

The primary two people who'd feedback I'll seek, if I were you, would be Emlightened and Deedlit. Both of them are not only math pros, but also seasoned googologists. They are also people who will make absolutely sure that their answers are right, before they give these answers to you.

And there are many others who would be interested in seeing your proof.

Moreover, since you said youself that there are, maybe, one or two mathematicians on the japense wiki, it is clear that nearly nobody there would even be able to understand your proof, let alone be interested in reading it. This is according to your own testimonial, which I've taken at face value.

(I can say this with certainty, because I've seen the references that your proof uses, which are in English. There's a no way a non-mathematician would be able to make heads or tails of these references, hence there's no way a non-mathematician would be able to do any kind of validity check on your proof).

I would also like point out that the probability of an unverified 72-page proof containing no error is virtually zero. The peer review process exists for a reason, and I think that having a few more pair of eyes (especially the eyes of the two people mentioned above) is something you really can't afford to do without. At least not if you care about the correctness of your results.

"At least, I think that great googologists here who sufficiently understand mathematics do not care about proofs, because they do not usually answer questions on problems and errors in their statements or definitions when I asked them"

Any person who does not care about proof, does not "sufficiently understand mathemiatics" :-)

And please remember that there are many people here who speak as if they are experts but actually know almost nothing. Not every person who speaks in set theoretic jargons is an expert.

Those who are experts, most certainly do care about proofs.

"If I have written it in English, there would be less reviewers."

A serious inspection of your proof already requires an understanding English, though. Or have you forgotten that your proof heavily relies on references to articles that are written in English?

Besides, English is the universal language of science and mathematics. You're not seriously claiming that there are Japanese mathematicians (including amateur mathematicians) who can't read English, are you? Especially given that the English level required to understand a mathematical argument is quite basic.

BTW my mother tongue isn't English either.