User blog comment:Emlightened/BIG FOOT is SMALLER than FISH NUMBER 7/@comment-30167082-20161225082916/@comment-24920136-20161225094007

No thats actually a pretty good claim

But i wonder if that is something that can be  patched / worked around or is actually a wrench-in-the-engine kind of thing.

I've actually been thinking alot lately about where FISH 7 stands, while i didn't particularly  consider Fish 7 > Bigfoot, i suggested somewhere that they should try to beat Fish 7 instead of trying to go for Bigfoot.

To be honest i still dont quite understand the impact of the oracle formula added to rayo's microlanguage. in Fish definition

However, in the Xi function definition, oracle combinators increase the order of the function by the order of the ordinal of the combinator. (ie Ξ_4(n) approximately BB_4(n))

If it is the case that the oracle formula in the FISH 7 definition acts analogously this previous principle to make ordinal leaps in order of set theory power (which i sense applies from reading emlighteneds post but in no way even remotely have the confidence to state as a claim )   And that FOOT is patched / works around the pointed induction problem,  the difference would lie in the layered recursion that peppers the FISH definition ( zeta_0+1 level) would beat bigfoot (though naively so, i guess, except Fish came first)