Rather than the BB sub n definition proposed in the article, I propose a new notation BB^n( x ), which is to the Busy Beaver sequence what Knuth up-arrow notati

Rather than the BB sub n definition proposed in the article, I propose a new notation BB^n( x ), which is to the Busy Beaver sequence what Knuth up-arrow notation is to the hyperoperation sequence. So you don't need to rely on the magic of a "super duper machine" to define the number, just recursive use of the Busy Beaver function. It's kind of tenuously on the boundary of the rules, since it uses a made-up notation.