User blog comment:B1mb0w/Fundamental Sequences/@comment-5529393-20160124015439/@comment-10262436-20160206053943

I have tried to define a self-consistent Fundamental Sequence in this blog. It is given a name (the Aristo Sequence) to avoid any ambiguity. Therefore I am satisfied that rule 2B does not create any logical problems when used with any or all of the other rules in this sequence.

When you say rule 2B is not a proper fundamental sequence, what standard are you applying ? It has been said many times in comments that their is no canonical FS after e_0, therefore why criticise the FS called the Aristo Sequence if it is just another sequence of many.

I do not ask this question lightly. If there is no canonical FS then values of Veblen functions will vary depending upon the FS that is used. Do you agree ?

cheers.