hej Henryk
The question asked was rather wide, so I thought I may contribute since I have been thinking about it most of the time for last years.
So if there are no interesting ideas, just dismiss it.
The FACT that operations are not studied compared to structures is OBVIOUS even to me. So things remain rather open.There is no difference how You derive i- it will work the same way.
I am not esoteric, but I simply see there has to be one way to explain nature, and it is mathematics and logic - nothing more should be needed. The trick is to go around Godel in a logical way, which is a separate topic.
I remember Andy coming up with -2,-4,-6 etc for negative infinite n-tations, and negative infinite pentation of base e produced "decent" fine structure constant approximation by me effortlessly-because I knew I should be looking for it in hyperoperations- and leaves room for further improvements if higher operations can be added.
The question asked was rather wide, so I thought I may contribute since I have been thinking about it most of the time for last years.
So if there are no interesting ideas, just dismiss it.
The FACT that operations are not studied compared to structures is OBVIOUS even to me. So things remain rather open.There is no difference how You derive i- it will work the same way.
I am not esoteric, but I simply see there has to be one way to explain nature, and it is mathematics and logic - nothing more should be needed. The trick is to go around Godel in a logical way, which is a separate topic.
I remember Andy coming up with -2,-4,-6 etc for negative infinite n-tations, and negative infinite pentation of base e produced "decent" fine structure constant approximation by me effortlessly-because I knew I should be looking for it in hyperoperations- and leaves room for further improvements if higher operations can be added.
