Grade | Description |
---|---|

Grade A |
In this category only fall notations that are completely well-defined form a standard used by professional mathematicans. Examples: Up-arrow notation, Chained arrow notation, Cascading-E notation. |

Grade B+ |
In this category fall notations that are well-defined, but use a notation professional mathematicans don't use. For example the ... notation when the number of nestings is specified. It is debatable whether this group is different from grade A, because the Kirby-Paris hydra, created by professional mathematicans also has a similiar thing. Example: Dollar function (up to Extended Bracket Notation). |

Grade B |
In this category fall notations that are debatable whether they are well-defined because they have a little ambiguity that wouldn't affect the growth rate. Whatever is specified for the ambiguity, the notation will be well-defined. A good example is the use of the ... operator without specifing the number of nests when it is obvious. |

Grade B- |
In this category fall notations that are debatable whether they are well-defined because they have assume some understanding of the human mind, i.e. an obvious rule is missing, though that makes the whole notation ill-defined. Example: We forget to define in dollar function, that when there is nothing after the $ the $ can be removed. Example 2: Probably #xE^ falls in this category, beacause it says that we can extrapolate rules back from earlier, or it falls in C+. |

Grade C+ |
In this category fall notations that are not well defined though they come close to it. There can be made a complete analysis. Example: Extended Array Notation, the original variant. It is clearly not well-defined because of the use of words, though we can make some sense of it. Example 2: Probably ##xE^ (the notations up to agoraphobia) falls here. |

Grade C |
In this category fall notations that are not well defined and some spots should be filled in by intuition, though it is possible to make some analysis. Example: Tetrational Arrays up to (w^w^w)*2. For example, what is {a,b(0,1)2}? Is it {a,a(b)2}? {a,b(b)2}? {a,b(a)2}? As a googologist, we would assume {a,a(b)2} or {a,b(b)2} because that is the most powerful definition. But {a,b(0,1)3} would be much harder. Example 2: /xE^ falls here, because its 'definition' is just a list with expressions. |

Grade C- |
In this category fall notations that are not well defined and most spots should be filled in by intuition. There can be made an estimation-analysis. Example: Tetrational Arrays. There are many problems like {a,b(0,1)3}. |

Grade D+ |
In this category fall notations that are not even near being well defined and many spots should be filled in by intuition, such as fundamental sequences assumed to be trivial, though they are very hard to define. The growth rate can be estimated, though it can't be called analysis. Example: The & operator up to the SVO. |

Grade D |
In this category fall notations which are so ill-defined that its growth rate can't be even estimated, though it is known what kind of notations are possible. Example: The & operator up to the legions. It is known that we can have expressions with arrays and &s |

Grade D- | In this category fall notations which are so ill-defined that there are different possibilities for expressions that should be possible or not. Example: BEAF up to lugions and {X,X/2}&n, beacause some dissallow it and some don't. |

Grade F |
Notations which aren't even meant to be defined. Example: Robinson's number |

It makes sense to make analys