07/12/2024, 06:26 AM
Hi 000_era, welcome to the tetration forum. Sadly nowadays the forum is only just an archive of old discussion and is not very active anymore, read as "completely dead". Hopefully it will comeback, if enough new users get curious about these topics. To this to be a possibility we poster should do our best to favour engagement and questions: by being respectful of ppl's time and kind. This translates in putting effort in our questions by doing the homeworks, being as clear as we can, eg. by trying to define things and use consistent notation. Something that sometimes was missing in the past.
Excuse me for my long welcome message. In the near future we will set up some mild moderation practices and set of guidelines for new users.
Back to your question. I'm not sure of the analogy you see there. If I recall correctly one can argue that there are not equations containing tatration functions that are not solved by complex numbers or by limits of sequences of complex numbers... so no new sets of numbers I guess... anyways I never understood if there was a proof or just some heuristics.
Can you make more precise what kind of analogy/scheme you see? For example I don't get why the role of the \(1/2\) doesn't break completely any scheme.
Btw: here you can display math notation just by enclosing your equations by \ ( your_equation \ ) as follows:
renders as \( (a+b)^n\).
Excuse me for my long welcome message. In the near future we will set up some mild moderation practices and set of guidelines for new users.
Back to your question. I'm not sure of the analogy you see there. If I recall correctly one can argue that there are not equations containing tatration functions that are not solved by complex numbers or by limits of sequences of complex numbers... so no new sets of numbers I guess... anyways I never understood if there was a proof or just some heuristics.
Can you make more precise what kind of analogy/scheme you see? For example I don't get why the role of the \(1/2\) doesn't break completely any scheme.
Btw: here you can display math notation just by enclosing your equations by \ ( your_equation \ ) as follows:
Code:
\( (a+b)^n\)renders as \( (a+b)^n\).
Mother Law \(\sigma^+\circ 0=\sigma \circ \sigma^+ \)
\({\rm Grp}_{\rm pt} ({\rm RK}J,G)\cong \mathbb N{\rm Set}_{\rm pt} (J, \Sigma^G)\)