User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Does anybody here know where I can have serious googology questions answered?/@comment-35470197-20181114222222/@comment-35470197-20181115123509

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

I thought that you are blaming us on the choice of language we used.

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

Oh, good. When I first read your blog post, I misunderstood that you are looking for a place where you can see a proof.

> 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).

I am serious. And I guess that you have sufficient knowledge, because you think that you proved the termination. It is very hard to show the termination unless you know OCF enough.

> 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. > > The 1986 article referenced in the beginning of your proof seems to contain everything I need to deduce the fundamental sequences I've asked about.

Oh, are you asking Just a definition? I see. Maybe you were caring about the typo in the definition in Buchholz's original paper.

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

Nayuta. She told me references on related topics which are available so that I could study googology.

> 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.

Oh... Ok. Actually I personally respect Emlightened very much, but recently she seems not to be so active here, because she has not answered my questions on her large numbers yet. On the other hand, I do not know well about Deedlit. At least he is blaming me, and we have distinct opinion on a result by Rathjen. Well, he told me "there is a proof by Rathjen", but there is no proof. Oh, I have heard a similar incident. (He has not changed his opinion on this yet, although it is obvious that there is no proof in the paper which he refered to. I think that this is a worst behaviour in mathematics.)

> it is clear that nearly nobody there would even be able to understand your proof,

I disagree. I spent that much months and pages to write a proof which is readable for googologists. For example, I used set theory only twice (by refering to the result on the well-foundedness of Buchholz's ordinal notation) at the exactly last part in the pdf so that almost all contents are understandable who only knows arithmetic.

Reading a proof is much easier than writing a proof. I know what you mean by refering to peer-reviewing, because I am also a referee of several published papers in journals.

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

Are you joking? Many of us can read English, but are not so good at English. Therefore it is good to reduce English from proof as well as possible, if I target Japanese googologists.

Ok, I listed two choices:
 * 1) I write a proof in English. Then only you read it. Other English users do not mind proofs (in my biased opinion), and Japanese googologists got too tired to continue to read 72 pages.
 * 2) I write a proof in Japanese. Then several Japanese read it.

> BTW my mother tongue isn't English either.

Well, education on English in Japan is often said to be bad. When I go abroad, I always think that people from other countries are much better at English than Japanese average... Please allow me if you are also suffering from my bad English :P