08/01/2022, 09:50 PM
(08/01/2022, 05:34 PM)Daniel Wrote: As an early editor of the Wikipedia's tetration page, I disconnected out of frustration for all the poor and unpublished mathematics in the real tetration and complex tetration sections. Well now there is a nice assortment of published articles and it would be appropriate to rewrite those two sections. Anyone interested in working on this? We could hammer out a replacement on this forum and then publish the results as a collective of researchers.
I dont have much love or faith in wikipedia.
I complained about them in the past.
Myself and friends tried to add things but got into rejection debates and nonsense.
Some subjects get lenghty explainations and some zero to none.
People are not who they claim to be.
Also they tend to hate " self-promotion " and " not peer review " although they are not consistant in it.
I must admit peer review and published papers might indeed be better, but i do not want to be behind a paywall either.
Some people called themselves " tetration experts that wrote many peer reviewed papers and know more than me ", but their names did not ring a bell and when I asked about those papers they got " silent ".
Also a retired ex-teacher who thaught 7 year olds to multiply does not fall into the category " math expert of tetration " by any reasonable standards !
I dont want to talk to much about it so I will leave it at that.
I will add however that * not trying to be paranoid or anything * I see sites mentioning math and later removing their content or even deleting the site.
Or the sites according to browsers scanners etc as unsafe.
Im very skeptical about online stuff.
regards
tommy1729