User blog comment:P進大好きbot/Analysis of 非想非非想 notation/@comment-39541634-20190827132021/@comment-35470197-20190828152455

@ Rpakr

I am the one who wrote the formal definition of Buchholz's ordinal notation in the article in Japanese googology wiki. As you know, there is no precise definition of Buchholz's ordinal notation in this wiki. I guessed that it is the biggest reason why people comfound ordinals with their expression and OCFs with the associated ordinal notations, and pay less attention to the definition of < and the criterion for standard forms.

Although I was too lazy not to write further explanations in the articles, I have written several blog posts on how to deal with OCFs and computable notations in Japanese googology wiki. Also, Fish has written elementary explanations on OCFs in his blog posts. Do them play roles which you require? (Well, I am not certain why you are stating now something about Japanese googology wiki.)

> I feel like the situation is getting better:

I think so, too. That is why I think that it is a good time to case a new proposal on analysis here. But to be fair, I should mention that Syst3ms is a rare example because he is much better than the average at formalisations and honestly studies both of Buchholz's paper and Rathjen's paper.

> I think what people need now is knowing how to formalize OCFs, how to do analyses properly, how to prove terminations of notations, etc. (as "how" I mean the actual method, not things like "to make ordinal notations make standard form rules and comparison rules".)

I have written several blog posts related to the topics, but they might be insufficient.
 * 1) List of Articles on OCFs
 * 2) List of Common Failures in Googology
 * 3) Evaluation of Analysis with respect to the Reproducibility