User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Evaluation of Analysis/@comment-30754445-20181120105029/@comment-35470197-20181120140536

aware of any other version of Psi where the limit of n functions is given as psi(psi_1(psi_2(psi_3(...)))).

At the same time, Bashicu was using his own extension of Madore's OCF in order to explain his analysis.

> "No ambiguity among the experts" is precisely the standard by which these things are evaluated even in peer-reviewed journals. In this case, "expert" means an experienced googologist(*).

Well, this depends on the definition of "experts". I am sure that you must be an expert. But as you clarified, the notion of "experts" depends on each person in this single community. Therefore the counterpart of the rule "No ambiguity among the experts" is not applicable to this community at all, because your definition of "experts" is not necessarily a common one.

It would be of level 3 nearby level 4 if (a link to) the precise definition of \(\psi\) were declared. I appreciate if you edit the page and add it so the it becomes level 3.

> For level 4 and below, if people can reasonably infer what function is being used, and if this function is well-defined, then that should be enough even if it isn't 100% formal.

It is easy to understand the statement of the analysis of level 3, but is difficult the reasoning from it. It is far from the reproducibility. See the Fiction Example 3. Since you are one of the greatest analysts in the world, you might determine whether an analysis without reasoning is true or false as an oracle, it is just your ability, and does not affect this evaluation from the view point of the reproducibility.