User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Please Help me on study of Pair Sequence System (2-rowed Bashicu Matrix System)/@comment-30754445-20180813155654/@comment-35470197-20180817143427

> And persumably keeping those proofs to yourself, eh? > > We already had such a "private proof" for the termination of BM1. For a few years everybody here (including myself - I admit) just trusted it without ever seeing it. Apparently that wasn't such a bright idea, was it?

Hmm...? You mean that I should write down the proof here, right? But rpakr will do. Moreover, few would read my proof, because I am not a reliable googologist here like you. (For example, who have ever read my proofs in my blog posts?) That is why I said that it is better for you to write.

Instead, I am writing a proof in Japanese for Japanese googologists with an explicit description of a fixed definition, because they personally required me to do so. (Many Japanese googologists study googology in a proof-based way.) Therefore you do not have to warry about the lack of peer-review.

> Also, how on earth could you prove the termination of a notation that has no agreed-upon ruleset? When you made that claim, my BS detector shot through the roof.

As I said, I proved for specific versions. I am only interested in mathematical statements, and hence do not plan to consider what ruleset is "the most appropriately accepted here" or something like that, even if you state that it should be BM1.

> I don't really see what insights you hope to gain from such a discussion.

Recall that many analysts do not specify which \(\psi\)-functions and which versions they are explicitly considering.

Therefore I wanted know which analyses are obviously incorrect if I assume that their unspecified \(\psi\)'s were Buchholz's and their unspecific versions were the same one as I am considering. Now I guess that few used Buchholz's \(\psi\), and hence it does not matter if their results coflict my personal arguments.

> I don't see either you or P-bot having any qualms about cooperating with the general foolishness that's going on around here.

Do I...? I could not understand why my activity is regarded as a harmful one... As I said, my thoughts might have mistakes. Therefore none believes my proof before fully written. (Maybe few believes my proof if fully written, though.)

> Especially when BM1 pair-sequences are known not to terminate...

I am not working on the termination of BM1. Concerning BM1, I am interested only in its strength restricted to a subsystem of terminating terms, because I could not imagine by myself how to creat such a system realising OCFs only using numbers and short rulesets.