Dear Andrew!
Your idea of a forum survey on terminology and symbols is excellent. I should say: essential. Unfortunately, my TeX reader doesn't work any more. It will work again ... next week. Could you please, in the meantime, post a pdf version of it? Thanks in advance. For the moment, to show my interest on this matter, I am sending you (again ... !) the attachment that I posted in August 2007, I presume. That is my position on terminology.
I should like to add or reiterate:
- we need general logotypes for hyper-operations (boxes, for example), as well as for hyper-logs and hyper-roots and, more particularly for the super-roots (at the 4th, tetra, level) ;
- I don't like the arrows notation;
- for iteration, I accept the 90% standard but, if there is a need: Campagnolo's brackets.
But, I wait for your kind pdf format, if you can do it. Thanks again!
GFR
Your idea of a forum survey on terminology and symbols is excellent. I should say: essential. Unfortunately, my TeX reader doesn't work any more. It will work again ... next week. Could you please, in the meantime, post a pdf version of it? Thanks in advance. For the moment, to show my interest on this matter, I am sending you (again ... !) the attachment that I posted in August 2007, I presume. That is my position on terminology.
I should like to add or reiterate:
- we need general logotypes for hyper-operations (boxes, for example), as well as for hyper-logs and hyper-roots and, more particularly for the super-roots (at the 4th, tetra, level) ;
- I don't like the arrows notation;
- for iteration, I accept the 90% standard but, if there is a need: Campagnolo's brackets.
But, I wait for your kind pdf format, if you can do it. Thanks again!
GFR