User blog comment:Superman37891/Request for a new rule/@comment-30754445-20170605000835/@comment-30754445-20170605233323

What do you mean "I've checked and he really defined a number"? How, exactly, did you "check" that?

I'm sorry, but SimplyBeautifulArt did not define an actual number, and I'm sure Cloudy176 himself would concur with my assessment, after I've clarified why. Any half-respectable googologist can tell you that what I've said about the fast-growing-hierarchy is 100% correct (with a caveat for the lower end of the recursion spectrum, which definitely doesn't apply to the BHO).

Of-course you shouldn't take my word for it. Go ahead and ask around for other opinions. Or even better: do a bit of research and find for yourself whether my claim is true. Take the time to learn how "the fast-growing-herarchy" and "fundamental sequences" work, before making bold statements about their proper use. Come to think of it, I recommend you learn these two things anyway, because they are the bread and butter of googology.