User blog comment:P進大好きbot/New Googological Ruler/@comment-31580368-20190629142620/@comment-35470197-20190630052636

You do not understand them.

The computatibility of the large function associated to finite promise game is not verified in a published article. If it is obvious for you that it is computable, please tell me the proof.

The termination of FGH associated to TON is still open. If it is obvious for you that it terminates, please tell me the proof. Or please publish a paper.

The well-definedness of the period function associated to Laver table is still open. Moreover, it does not believed to eventually dominate such functions. If it is obvious for you that it terminates, please tell me the proof. I strongly recommend you to publish a paper because it is an open problem in mathematics.

Then could you understand why your ruler does not have a valid example?

By the way, could you tell me the proof of your statement that Loader's number and DAN are obviously between 24 and 40 in your scale if you are honest.

> PS: I believe that the question of what a "ill-defined function" means is to be attributed to the question of the philosophy of mathematics. For example: any of our functions using ω is "ill-defined function" in terms of ultrafinitist.

It is a wrong point of view, because I clearly declare the use of ZFC set theory. I am not saying that we can actually terminate the computation process in the real world, but referring to the provability, which can be stated in terms of finite strings concerning syntax-theory.

Well, if you do not understand syntax in formal logic, I am 95% certain that you do not understand the definition of PTO. Then how could you believe that your scale works?