User blog comment:P進大好きbot/New Googological Ruler/@comment-31580368-20190718022500/@comment-35470197-20190719025946

> Book

I have read a portion of it through googole translation. I think that you wrote wrong descriptions on ordina notations. An OCF can never be an ordinal notation, because it is just an ordinal function. An ordinal notation is a recursive well-ordered set. It is irrelevant to ordinal functions. Statements like "an OCF is an ordinal notation if it admits a system of fundamental sequences" is similar to explanations like "an egg with heat is a roasted chicken". It is just a material. Maybe you should refer to standard textbooks before writing books in order to avoid spreading such mistakes.

> But people still continue to do this, perhaps I'll just close access to it.

Since many googologists refer to it from places which you do not know, they do not even know that you are not willing for them to refer to it. How about clarifying "They contain errors and functions are not the standard formalised ones" or something like that at the top of the table?

> Indeed, the features of the formulation of axioms in a programming language can play a major role in determining the rate of growth.

Maybe you get a wrong point of view. PA can deal with arrays by the presentability theorem of primitive recursions. Also, we are allowed to use formulae which are not necessarily \(\Delta_0\). Therefore the provability of the unique existence of a natural number characterised in the theory does not ensures the computability in a programming-like method. Therefore the observation does not ensure the comparison of the strength with respect to computable googology.