User blog comment:Vel!/FGH Gripe/@comment-30754445-20170220134751

Personally, the only thing I care about - in this respect - is whether a statement is true or not.

If it isn't (like the claim that BEAF is well-defined beyond tetrational arrays) then it shouldn't be on the wiki. And certainly, any claim made regarding the growth rate of a given notation should not be made lightly.

But I don't think we should require academic-journal-level regourness (sp?) either. A wiki is an encyclopedia and not an academic journal. And as an encyclopedia, what is important is to get our facts straight - nothing more and nothing less.

At any rate, statements of the form "It grows like ordinal X on the FGH" do have a well-defined meaning. I've yet to see an example where two different NATURAL fundamental sequences give radically different results in the FGH, and there's really no reason to assume this can happen. The problem is that people here seldom try to justify their claims of growth rate.

Case in point: Didn't GoogleAarex just declare most of his previous work irelevant, after years of claiming his notation reached insanely great heights? Not to mention BEAF, which took years for people to finally admit it breaks down beyond tetrational arrays.

Makes you wonder what other notations here are either ill-defined or grow much slower than everyone here thinks they do. I'll sure be far more skeptical, next time someone claims a notation reaches Rathjen's ordinal (let alone 2nd order arithmetic)