User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Proposal to Choose an Official Standard OCF in This Wiki/@comment-43798125-20191217152421/@comment-35470197-20191218010346

@Moooosey

Then we need to use another OCF. As I clarified, the proposal does not force us to only use the chosen one. It is just an official recommendation to study and use the chosen one as far as we work with notations bounded by its limit.

Therefore it is good to choose an OCF whose limit is greater than almost all notations appearing in the current community. For example, Buchholz's OCF might be sufficient, but I recommend extended Buchholz's OCF because there is few jumps between the learning processes of them.

@GamesFan2000

Exactly. I submitted this blog post this time because we fortunately simultaneously have three experts, e.g. Plain'N'Simple, hyp cos, and Denis Marksudov. Usually we only have hyp cos, and hence it seems to be a pretty good opportunity for us to share the idea of this project.

Anyway, I believe that we do not need an OCF greater than extended Buchholz's OCF in the current community. At least, there were several candidates greater than it, and hence we do not have to create a new OCF. If we need to consider it, one of the candidates is Denis's OCF based on higher inaccessibility. Denis created an ordinal notation associated to it this week in his talk page, which looks great for me. It seems to be much simpler than Jager's (which I do not know well) and Rathjen's up to its limit.