User blog comment:KthulhuHimself/Norminals Revisited./@comment-27173506-20160204132906/@comment-27014275-20160322092430

I would like to point out that  would not be  N <0,2>, but rather  N <<<<...,1>,1>,1>,1>  with omega nestings of <0,1>; as <0,2> represnts the limit of any system using 1 as the second entry of an array ordinal, not just the limit of systems using a finite number of nestings. Also, in reply to GN:

" Ah, I see where my mistake is: <0,a> is defined merely as the supremum of {<0,a-1>,<<0,a-1>,a-1>,<<<0,a-1>,a-1>,a-1>...}, and not as a new limit to what we can construct with <0,a-1>... "

What you thought was in fact not a mistake, as <0,a> does represnt the limit of anything constructable with <0,(a-1)>.

Also, I do believe (from my understanding of FOOT), that  N <0,0,1> (n)  is very similar to FOOT(n) by definition alone. Also, in reply to wojo:

"... even if the definitions were working (which I can argue they aren't specific enough)... "

Please, if you see any issues with the definition(s), please do share it with me so that I can fix them.