(05/30/2021, 07:14 PM)MphLee Wrote: Let me start with a provocative note.
The argument is so sharp that I can't see it.
Let me explain. I can't see the logic of the argument and I see at least three critical logic steps that invalidates the proof (both in your and in Galidakis's).
...
Can you expand on this filling the missing details?
MphLee, thank you for your response and your humorous retort.
Let me try and provide some clarity as to what is going on. There is a problem with the mingling of private and public correspondence; about a year ago Galidakis contacted me and let me know he felt I had found the correct path to solve the extension of tetration. I didn't go public with his support because Galidikis didn't go public himself. Likewise Galidakis has my support. Also he is the most published researcher with six papers published on tetration. Both Galidakis and I have tried to follow Trappmann and Kouznetsov's work, but couldn't follow and support the conclusions. FYI - Stephen Wolfram considers me likely the most important researcher in extending tetration.
MphLee, can you clarify which proofs you have an issue with? The calculation of the extensions of tetration or convergence of the extension?
Daniel