User blog comment:B1mb0w/Fundamental Sequences/@comment-5529393-20151113121456/@comment-10262436-20151114024157

Hi. I have tidied up the presentation of the Alternative rule-set. It appears to be more succinct and only uses 3 rules.

I don't understand your point about phi(a,b)^^w = e_phi(a,b)+1. Why would this be true. I find mixing phi and epsilon expressions to be more confusing than useful. Therefore I try to use phi(1,x) instead of epsilon.

My comment about phi(a+1,0)[0] was really directed at using the diagonal of zero. This seems to be artificial (or unnecessary). The alternative rule set does not decrement the diagonal parameter 1. Therefore these is no need to define (or worry about) the calculation of expressions with a diagonal of zero [0].