User blog comment:Vel!/Googology and well-defined-ness/@comment-83.237.170.16-20141017233503/@comment-1605058-20141018173305

I understand that the author couldn't have used tetration per se, but if he at least mentioned "and the n-th term is n^n^...^n with n n's" (the general rule of forming the numbers) I'd totally count the definition as grade A.

I have no idea why you mention my formal proof when talking about ambiguity of definitions.

Your mention of Conway seems to imply that his chained arrow notation is not in fact grade A. I find this notation to be completely well-defined and worth belonging to grade A. I don't know many other problems due to Conway which result in larger numbers.

Your next point, about Graham's number, is completely not about ambiguity of definitions, but rather people who are explaining it. Definition of up-arrows easily allows us to deal with larger tetronents and higher order operators.

None of the points you gave supports your claim that it's good that we avoid precision, or I'm just missing the parts where it does.