User blog comment:Nayuta Ito/faketest/e0/@comment-30754445-20180804174000/@comment-30754445-20180804235842

What?

I was just quoting, symbol-for-symbol, what was written here:

https://googology.wikia.com/wiki/User:Username5243/Username%27s_OCF

Scroll to the appropriate line and you'll see it yourself.

And since that line directly contradicts your calculation, then either Username5243 or you made a mistake. In this case, the problem is with your calculation. More precisely, the problem is this statement:

"is not too hard to show that U(W_2+a) = BHO*w^a for countable a"

This is false.

While the equation you've given is correct up to a certain limit, it most certainly isn't true for "all countable a". More specifically, it is not true for any countable a > U(W_2+W). This is a fact you would have been aware of, if you understood the basics of how OCF's work in general.

And would you mind explaining, please, how am I being "a douche"? Just because I'm pointing out that the system you claim to be "simple and intuitive" is niether of these things?

It is clear that UNOCF is far more difficult to understand than you originally believed. Apparently, it presents newbies with precisely the same pitfalls and the same complications and the same points of confusion.

Which, by the way, is good news. If it is just as complicated and confusing as the "standard" collapsing functions, it might also turn out to be just as powerful.

(it does raise the question, though, of why not simply learning the standard OCF instead of this untested version which doesn't seem to be any simpler. Why re-invent the wheel?)