User blog comment:Vel!/Googology and well-defined-ness/@comment-1605058-20141007094943/@comment-1605058-20141007192451

After some thinking, here is my revised point: I think that grade B indeed should be considered by us, but only if it evidently can be turned into grade A. For example, as Wyth noted in his blog post, Dollar function has no rule saying us when to drop $, but this is quite evident, so we can add this rule and push the notation towards grade A.

What we shouldn't consider, however, is any notation based on examples. Even if there is 1000 examples given, and one could deduce the point from them, it still leaves the hard work of figuring out what the hell is going on to the reader, while author seems to give no attempt to formalize his work. What if author's idea was to have a sudden blow-up in rules right after the example? This still leaves too much ambiguity for us to care.

And again, I think that grades C or below are not worth analysing in a way Hyp cos analysed BEAF. Even though none of us has any idea how to deal with luggions and stuff, Hyp cos managed to go with his analysis even further. I'd have nothing against it if someone has formalized a notation, which wouldn't necessarily be BEAF anymore, and analysed that one. Note that such formalization would have to be grade B or A for analysis to be meaningful.