User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Does anybody here know where I can have serious googology questions answered?/@comment-35470197-20181114222222/@comment-35470197-20181116012856

> If you really thought that, why did you apologize (given that you don't see anything wrong with that choice)?

Uh-huh. As a Japanese traditional custom, we apologize (or just pronounce a word of apology) when something looks bad even though we are not wrong. Well, I could not precisely state the condition where the traditional apology occurs, because I am not a professional on custom.

> Even taking into account your statement about "bad English", I see absolutely no way for my post to be interperted in this manner.

The title is "Does anybody here know where I can have serious googology questions answered?"

Then I interpreted 2 into "I also have a few pieces of personal googology work I'd like to share with the world. Then I want to know where I can have 2(a) and 2(b) answered?" So I skippedthe colon at the end of 2. Accordingto the title, I regarded 1, 2, and 3 as questions on places where you can ask serious questions on those topics. Ok, it is not derived from my bad English, but from my bad brain.

> Yet you claim that as a "beginner" you've managed to do it? > Nothing you've written so far makes any kind of logical sense.

Ok. Since I could not understand the problem on my claims, I might be wrong.

Also, I am not so interested in claims on the use of natural language.

> No. I asked specificially for the fundamental sequences, which are not explicitly stated in that paper. However, after carefully reading all the theorems and lemmas and propositions in there, I've managed to bridge the gap and deduce these fundamental sequences.

No? Then what does "ask for the FS" precisely mean? The definition itself is written explicitly in the two articles by Buchholz to which I refered (pp.203-204 in "A new system of proof-theoretic ordinal functions" and also p.6 in "Relating ordinals to proofs in a perspicious way"). So I could not understand why you "asked for the FS" if you had already known the definition. I just thought that you had not shown us an explicit question on the FS yet and that you were looking for a place to ask a certain property on the FS.

> Also, what typo are you refering to?

The last equality in the definition ([].4) (ii) of the funcdamental sequence in pp.203-204 in "A new system of proof-theoretic ordinal functions" is obviously wrong.

> I never said you should post your proof here. I simply stated that you should post in English, so people like Emlightened and myself could have the chance to check it.

I do not know sufficiently sophisticated googology communities other than what I listed. Expecting unknown googologists at somewhere else or past googologists who are no longer active here to read my proof is a worse choice for me than expecting known Japanese active googologists to do so.

We just have different opinions:
 * 1) You think that googologists which prefer English will give me feedbacks quicker.
 * 2) I think that googologists which prefer Japanese will give me feedbacks quicker.

> True. But verifying a proof as far more difficult then merely reading it.

Right. Few amateur could read a proof of FLT. But as I said, almost all part of my proof is written in elementary arguments with arithmetic. It can be understood by Japanese googolgists.

> No, I'm not joking. Are you joking?

No. Then ok.

> Your English, by theway, is quite good. Not sure where you got the idea that you suffer from bad English, because you don't.

Oh, thank you. I feel honoured :)

> By the way, you've completely ignored my 3 questions regarding your proof. Why?

Oh, I did not notice the EDIT. Sorry.

> (1) Which version of BMS?

I explicitly formulated in the blog post a specific version of PSS by myself in order to avoid intuition-based ambiguity and the stability against changes by creators. It works in the same way as BM1.1, 2, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2 with respect to the 20/8/2018 version of koteitan's mathematical classification if I am correct. (A proof of the comparison to such existing versions is not verified, because I am not interested in such an unstable work.)

> (2) Up to where (pair-sequences? quad-arrays? the entire system?)

Only standard forms of PSS.

> (3) What are your proven lower and upper bounds of the ordinal representing the power of the notation you've shown to terminate?

In order to answer this question, I need explanation in detail. So I would like to separate my reply here. I will answer it.