User blog comment:Vel!/FGH Gripe/@comment-5982810-20150325004329

These "comparisons" aren't coming out of thin air. They are based on enumerations of the (ordinal) number of applications of primitive recursion and the fairly safe bet that for sufficiently fast growing functions small fluxations in the fundamental sequences won't make a significant dent. The claimed growth rates are therefore just informal conjectures, but one for which none of the examples gives sufficient reason to be strongly doubtful about. It should not surprise even you Vel! , if all our googological functions should turn out to stabilize against each other. If your so worried about informality just state that these are conjectures. But tossing them out completely, pretending like they tell us nothing is to leave googology blind and stupid. Instead we can use these conjectures as tentative guideposts. People aren't going to give that up entirely Vel!, even if all of it was removed from the wiki, the googology community would continue to use it because we need a way to compare numbers! Without offering an alternative your not going to get very far chastising the community. What is needed is for someone to start doing the proofs, someone to set the example. I have been working on formalizing all this stuff we kind of take for granted in googology for a while now. I am working on comparison proofs right now. When people start introducing more formality that's when things will change. Erasing what we have is just going backwards. And no '''making no claim is NOT better than making conjectures. '''At least a conjecture gives you a point of reference to aim at.