Another thought-just forgive me please:
-i was the result of infinite tetration of e^pi/2
-pi/2 is a result of infinite pentation of e^(1/e)
-pi/2 is also lni/i which in my outragoues formulation was dI= -pi/2 .
dI was considered by me a hypersurface of hypervolume -i . Now it seems that by moving one operation up we get that surface value if we change base from e^pi/2 to e^(1/e).
That would be fine as long as hypersurfaces are 1 dimension away from hypervolumes by definition. But why did we need to change base to obtain it? On other hand, why not?
Also, see how it looks nested:
-i=h(i^-i) = e^(-i*(pi/2)) = e^ (h(i^(1/i)) * pentation (e^(1/e))) with appropriate signs (infinite operations.)
Now it seems interesting to know which exponentation operation infinitely applied gives e?
(1+1/n)^n =e ?
And which multiplication applied infintely gives 1?
What else should follow in both directions?
Ivars
-i was the result of infinite tetration of e^pi/2
-pi/2 is a result of infinite pentation of e^(1/e)
-pi/2 is also lni/i which in my outragoues formulation was dI= -pi/2 .
dI was considered by me a hypersurface of hypervolume -i . Now it seems that by moving one operation up we get that surface value if we change base from e^pi/2 to e^(1/e).
That would be fine as long as hypersurfaces are 1 dimension away from hypervolumes by definition. But why did we need to change base to obtain it? On other hand, why not?
Also, see how it looks nested:
-i=h(i^-i) = e^(-i*(pi/2)) = e^ (h(i^(1/i)) * pentation (e^(1/e))) with appropriate signs (infinite operations.)
Now it seems interesting to know which exponentation operation infinitely applied gives e?
(1+1/n)^n =e ?
And which multiplication applied infintely gives 1?
What else should follow in both directions?
Ivars