12/18/2022, 08:22 AM
(12/18/2022, 03:00 AM)Daniel Wrote: OMG MphLee, your list is beyond amazing! While I would be happy to have the list on my web site I feel this should probably be managed as a collective resource. Also the list is damn valuable. The best previous list I had seen was Galidakis' list which he inherited from David Renfro. Galidakis had me link to the root of his math site so that folks would be encouraged to look at his research. Having an accessible list like this can improve a site's standing in Google searches.
I need to give this topic significant thought and return to this posting. I'd love to hear other's thoughts.
Do what you like with my list but take it with a grain of salt: I'm not an expert on dynamics. That's just a list I collected during the years of things that seems related and interesting to me.
While for the hyperoperations list, well I'm pretty proud of it... I believe it is almost a complete bibliography on the argument... even if some players are missing... like Nambiar's paper, Galidakis stuff and few other items... But Its all there in my database... but not time to organize the files...
(12/18/2022, 03:08 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: I will say, of Mphlee's list--it is very foundational. And focuses I'd say 60% on the foundations of hyper-operational "structures". So it's not a list on analytic approaches. I'm not discrediting this--it's just plain to see Mphlee is focused on the categorical nature of hyper-operations.
It is but not categorical. It is actually three lists... the one about hyper-operations, I claim, is pretty much complete. It is all there is around about it imho. The one about Tetration/iterated exp is pretty complete as well, even if some of the oldest papers may be missing it contains almost everything that came out of this forum. No categorical bullshit!
About the list on iteration/dynamics, It is pretty analytic imho. Originally I meant to post it like that, I just added the blue items later, the blue items are about foundational/categorical approach... just for completeness. It is actually two different lists merged.
And the last list is not even an attempt. I know you have the right literature on that topic.
Mother Law \(\sigma^+\circ 0=\sigma \circ \sigma^+ \)
\({\rm Grp}_{\rm pt} ({\rm RK}J,G)\cong \mathbb N{\rm Set}_{\rm pt} (J, \Sigma^G)\)