User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Evaluation of Analysis/@comment-30754445-20181120105029/@comment-30754445-20181120153740

"At the same time, Bashicu was using his own extension of Madore's OCF in order to explain his analysis."

I've never heard of it.

Is it well defined?

Was it ever posted in English?

Actually, I've just looked at the link to the analysis you've given. Nobody there used multiple OCF's there at all (with the sole exception of writing psi(psi1(0)) to denote the BHO and psi(Omega_w) whose meaning is obvious). The analysis itself used Madore's Psi, plain and simple (which is why it isn't actually an analysis of pair sequences. It's just an analysis of the subsystem up to  (0,0)(1,1)(2,2)).

In short, there's absolutely nothing ambigious there. Multiple CF's aren't even a factor. Moreover, there are those little "=SVO" and "=LVO" and so on, to clarify any remaining point of confusion.

"But as you clarified, the notion of "experts" depends on each person in this single community. Therefore the counterpart of the rule "No ambiguity among the experts" is not applicable to this community at all, because your definition of "experts" is not necessarily a common one."

We're getting side-tracked here.

My point is that when doing any kind of research, there are agreed-upon basic concepts which does not need to be explained every time they are used.

The only question is where we draw the line. Do we need to explain what an ordinal is, every time we use ordinals? Do we need to reference Peano Axioms every time we use numbers? How about definitions of the words we are using in English?

Obviously that would be absurd. So who gets to decide what constitutes "common knowledge in the field" which can be used without a direct reference, and what doesn't? You? A person who openly stated that when it comes to googology he is an absolute beginner?

Here is a very simple criterion for this:

Would a person who is already comfortable with googological notations of similar power, be able to understand what's written without any confusion?

The answer to that question, when it comes to the analysis in question, is a very clear "yes". Any person who understands Bird Arrays or any other BHO+ level notation would have absolutely no problem understanding the notation we've used there.

"I appreciate if you edit the page and add it so the it becomes level 3."

It's a wiki talk page whose purpose to faithfully record the conversation. It shouldn't be edited.

But even if it there was no problem editing the page, I wouldn't do it. Adding "clarifications" when they are not really needed is just making the conversation more difficult to read.

Feel free to keep it at level 2, though, if you wish. It's not like your rating is official or anything (and it's not like level 3 is such a great honor, either ;-)).

But I still maintain that according to the criteria you've listed yourself, it is a level 3, and that your classification here is wrong.

"It is easy to understand the statement of the analysis of level 3, but is difficult the reasoning from it. It is far from the reproducibility. See the Fiction Example 3. Since you are one of the greatest analysts in the world, you might determine whether an analysis without reasoning is true or false as an oracle, it is just your ability, and does not affect this evaluation from the view point of the reproducibility."

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

Yes, I'm fully aware of the big difference between a level 3 analysis and a level 4 one. And I've never claimed that the talk-page we're discussing is level 4.