Retiring quickly

[Daniel]

I am sixty five and have researched tetration for fifty years. But the primary focus of my life has always been making this a better world. I seriously doubt the world gets much use from my work with tetration. I do find objective beauty in the tetration fractals I have worked with, I do feel beauty is important. I also have multiple health problems including sleep apnea where I typically stop breathing 56 times an hour. So I am far from being at my best. Also, due to the politics of tetration here I have a problem with my loss of respect and trust. Best wishes.

[bo198214]

Dear Daniel,

there is no disrespect towards you. I appreciate you as a person who dedicated much time of his life researching Tetration and also your intention of making this world a better place.
 Where we always clash is when you start your "the great sage Geisler" story. I know I am quite direct and harsh sometimes - sometimes more than necessary in hindsight - but, you also can use that as an advantage: I would not say one thing but secretly have the opposite opinion or even agenda.
To say it clearly (as always with the risk of offense): I doubt that your research results can compete on a professional mathematics level.

So this is a clear statement, it does not contain a judgement of your person, it's just an opinion grown from my occupation with mathematics. And I even would say that for myself that I am struggling on that level.

But how important is that anyways? Is it all about recognition or is it about the joy and beauty of roaming in the field itself? Maybe mixed?

I am telling you this that you can make a better informed decision, which would be difficult enough anyways.

As long as we discuss our findings, questions and ideas on a concrete level there would be no friction and we can have a great time, but as soon as you start the "great sage Geisler" story we will clash.

[Catullus]

I also have multiple health problems including sleep apnea where I typically stop breathing 56 times an hour. So I am far from being at my best. Also, due to the politics of tetration here I have a problem with my loss of respect and trust.

I am sorry to hear that.

 Where we always clash is when you start your "the great sage Geisler" story.

What is wrong with the "great sage Geisler" story?

[JmsNxn]

Dear Daniel,

there is no disrespect towards you. I appreciate you as a person who dedicated much time of his life researching Tetration and also your intention of making this world a better place.
 Where we always clash is when you start your "the great sage Geisler" story. I know I am quite direct and harsh sometimes - sometimes more than necessary in hindsight - but, you also can use that as an advantage: I would not say one thing but secretly have the opposite opinion or even agenda.
To say it clearly (as always with the risk of offense): I doubt that your research results can compete on a professional mathematics level.

So this is a clear statement, it does not contain a judgement of your person, it's just an opinion grown from my occupation with mathematics. And I even would say that for myself that I am struggling on that level.

But how important is that anyways? Is it all about recognition or is it about the joy and beauty of roaming in the field itself? Maybe mixed?

I am telling you this that you can make a better informed decision, which would be difficult enough anyways.

As long as we discuss our findings, questions and ideas on a concrete level there would be no friction and we can have a great time, but as soon as you start the "great sage Geisler" story we will clash.

Thank you, bo.

I see this a lot amongst iteration theory types, amongst tetration and iterative functions. Dealing with continuum sums or anything like that. It seems to attract too much of that. As a mathematician you learn consistently on a timely basis that there is a bigger fish. There's always a bigger fish. Are you doing this to be the only big fish. Or are you here to figure out how this shit works. We're not on this forum to be famous one of a kind Euler level genius. We're here to figure out how iteration theory works, and see if we get a chance at pointing out a single truth. We managed to light one candle in the mosaic that is mathematics. We painted a single line.

I appreciate your work, Daniel. Your work is not easy, the shit you've done is good. But you need to stop the holier than thou attitude.

[Daniel]

Dear Daniel,

there is no disrespect towards you. I appreciate you as a person who dedicated much time of his life researching Tetration and also your intention of making this world a better place.
 Where we always clash is when you start your "the great sage Geisler" story. I know I am quite direct and harsh sometimes - sometimes more than necessary in hindsight - but, you also can use that as an advantage: I would not say one thing but secretly have the opposite opinion or even agenda.
To say it clearly (as always with the risk of offense): I doubt that your research results can compete on a professional mathematics level.

So this is a clear statement, it does not contain a judgement of your person, it's just an opinion grown from my occupation with mathematics. And I even would say that for myself that I am struggling on that level.

But how important is that anyways? Is it all about recognition or is it about the joy and beauty of roaming in the field itself? Maybe mixed?

I am telling you this that you can make a better informed decision, which would be difficult enough anyways.

As long as we discuss our findings, questions and ideas on a concrete level there would be no friction and we can have a great time, but as soon as you start the "great sage Geisler" story we will clash.

Thank you, bo.

I see this a lot amongst iteration theory types, amongst tetration and iterative functions. Dealing with continuum sums or anything like that. It seems to attract too much of that. As a mathematician you learn consistently on a timely basis that there is a bigger fish. There's always a bigger fish. Are you doing this to be the only big fish. Or are you here to figure out how this shit works. We're not on this forum to be famous one of a kind Euler level genius. We're here to figure out how iteration theory works, and see if we get a chance at pointing out a single truth. We managed to light one candle in the mosaic that is mathematics. We painted a single line.

I appreciate your work, Daniel. Your work is not easy, the shit you've done is good. But you need to stop the holier than thou attitude.

I have requested that Bo delete my account. Please get it done. Thanks.

[bo198214]

I will give it a month of "annealing time" and then fulfil your wish if still prevailing.

[Daniel]

I will give it a month of "annealing time" and then fulfil your wish if still prevailing.

Thank you.

[Daniel]

Dear Daniel,

there is no disrespect towards you. I appreciate you as a person who dedicated much time of his life researching Tetration and also your intention of making this world a better place.
 Where we always clash is when you start your "the great sage Geisler" story. I know I am quite direct and harsh sometimes - sometimes more than necessary in hindsight - but, you also can use that as an advantage: I would not say one thing but secretly have the opposite opinion or even agenda.
To say it clearly (as always with the risk of offense): I doubt that your research results can compete on a professional mathematics level.

So this is a clear statement, it does not contain a judgement of your person, it's just an opinion grown from my occupation with mathematics. And I even would say that for myself that I am struggling on that level.

But how important is that anyways? Is it all about recognition or is it about the joy and beauty of roaming in the field itself? Maybe mixed?

I am telling you this that you can make a better informed decision, which would be difficult enough anyways.

As long as we discuss our findings, questions and ideas on a concrete level there would be no friction and we can have a great time, but as soon as you start the "great sage Geisler" story we will clash.

Thank you, bo.

I see this a lot amongst iteration theory types, amongst tetration and iterative functions. Dealing with continuum sums or anything like that. It seems to attract too much of that. As a mathematician you learn consistently on a timely basis that there is a bigger fish. There's always a bigger fish. Are you doing this to be the only big fish. Or are you here to figure out how this shit works. We're not on this forum to be famous one of a kind Euler level genius. We're here to figure out how iteration theory works, and see if we get a chance at pointing out a single truth. We managed to light one candle in the mosaic that is mathematics. We painted a single line.

I appreciate your work, Daniel. Your work is not easy, the shit you've done is good. But you need to stop the holier than thou attitude.

Well it seems like there are several questions or issues folks have. My motives for involvement with tetration, being a braggard, and the non-professional standing of my work. What follows depends on your feeling on diversity and your personal need to see me have my ass kicked. Leadership is not waiting still someone wants their account deleted to begin a discussion on a person's numerous and large shortcomings. What did I do with Catullus when I had an issue with him? I gave him hell, but I also offered to PM him. I strongly support the principles of critical thinking. If challenged I prefer to deal with every issue in succession in an emotionally neutral manner. When I ask a simple question, I expect a simple answer, not questions on the collective validity of my work, my motivation and whether I am arrogant. 

It is an open secret that I am bipolar and moderately autistic. If I seem overly pumped up on my work, well I'm overly pumped up on the last thing I encountered. I'm overly pumped up on everything. I'm the one who is interested in all the members here and posted my interest in writing a book of biographies. Normally I try to operate with absolute honesty and transparency. I am open to hearing about the incidents that upset folks and offer either a solid explanation and or an apology.

Now on to my motivation. Do I want fame? I'm autistic, the answer is no. What I do want is to effect positive change. But I can't figure out how to create change when no one knows who you are. The real answer is I want to drop the responsibility I have felt for years to see tetration established. I value people over tetration, mathematics and fame.
I was Wolfram's go to person regarding tetration, but I felt objectively that Wolfram might be better served working with Paulsen. Trust me, I did this for the good of the tetration community, not my aspirations of fame. Who else has a track record of doing the same. Did anyone even process that I was one of the more proactive people is seeing the Tetration Forum preserved. I offered my skills as a system administration. Didn't suggest I make policy or be in the inner circle. I was just going to help out with essentially time sensitive grunt work. Once again, what was my motivation here? 

Greetings Dr. Stephen Wolfram,
I wish to introduce Dr. William Paulsen, the author of the two articles I recently sent to you. Dr. Paulsen has published the first significant paper on complex tetration. He has taken on convergence, which has stymied everyone else. As I mentioned earlier, he works with Mathematica and likely has software appropriate for Wolfram Functions. The following is his summary of his work.

I have developed an iterative method for finding the complex tetration (and therefore complex fractional iterations) to hundreds of digits, for real bases > e^(1/e) (although if the base is extremely close to this value, the convergence slows down to the point of being ineffective.)  For example, with a base of e, each cycle through the iteration cuts the error by about a fourth, so to cycles give another place of accuracy.  I have proven that my tetration is equivalent to Kneser's solution.  For the record, it is also equivalent to Dmitrii Kouznetsov's version.  I even expanded this method to define tetration for complex bases, so I could find  i i.  This expanded method works for bases < e^(1/e), but because I go around the singularity at e^(1/e), it is slightly different than Schroder's solutions using the fixed points.

Sincerely,
Daniel

Finally the academic lackings of my mathematics. Golly, I'm in a Catch-22! I can't mention reasons to believe my mathematics is academically worthy without pissing folks off for bragging.

It is no secret that I only completed two years of college. The combination of extreme poverty, being bipolar, autistic, and particularly having hyper-acute senses meant that I couldn't function in a classroom. No academic library available, no money for books. Due to autism I struggle with all forms of human communication - writing elegant papers as well as reading German and French. A bad deal in our line of work.

While I like my paper on Bell Polynomials of Iterated Functions, I am so unhappy with the quality of Tetration.org that I have taken it down before. I have been considering passing on the Tetration.org domain.

Edit: Sorry about being so feisty, I spent days deescalating and "annealing". The more time passes, the more I will be able to process things in a non fight or flight response.

[MphLee]

I'm not sure I want to enter in this. I'd like to avoid my poor english to make things worse.

But I believe that there is just some sort of communication problem going on here, on both parts. A problem that cause both parts to add some salty lines here and there sometimes. Just this.

Daniel asked questions. It seems to me that in the past weeks Daniel realized better what were his weak points in approaching iteration and research in general. So he tried to ask some question and exit his comfort zone. Everyone has one and it is hard to get out of there. Obviously we are not pro mathematicians... so he tried to do this to the best of his possibilities asking question, asking help the most expert here to build a bridge from the place where he'd like to visit to his little village.

After that Gottfried, Bo and JmsNxn offered explanations, maybe not every one of them fully tuned with the speed and detail Daniel was ready for or in some way not perfectly tuned for him to understand and in a way that probably criticized the point of view adopted by Daniel in his research, with the best intentions, I believe.

Daniel then perceived that wrongly in part and in part felt his questions were avoided, it is natural that he felt he had to move to a more defensive position.

Bo and James perceived that as the sage attitude, but weren't really attacking Daniel personally imho.

Maybe all the parts are having small communication issues.
I believe all the actual forum members are way more humble than they seem to be, just be kind to each other

wish for the best.

[Daniel]

I'm not sure I want to enter in this. I'd like to avoid my poor english to make things worse.

But I believe that there is just some sort of communication problem going on here, on both parts. A problem that cause both parts to add some salty lines here and there sometimes. Just this.

Daniel asked questions. It seems to me that in the past weeks Daniel realized better what were his weak points in approaching iteration and research in general. So he tried to ask some question and exit his comfort zone. Everyone has one and it is hard to get out of there. Obviously we are not pro mathematicians... so he tried to do this to the best of his possibilities asking question, asking help the most expert here to build a bridge from the place where he'd like to visit to his little village.

After that Gottfried, Bo and JmsNxn offered explanations, maybe not every one of them fully tuned with the speed and detail Daniel was ready for or in some way not perfectly tuned for him to understand and in a way that probably criticized the point of view adopted by Daniel in his research, with the best intentions, I believe.

Daniel then perceived that wrongly in part and in part felt his questions were avoided, it is natural that he felt he had to move to a more defensive position.

Bo and James perceived that as the sage attitude, but weren't really attacking Daniel personally imho.

Maybe all the parts are having small communication issues.
I believe all the actual forum members are way more humble than they seem to be, just be kind to each other

wish for the best.

Thank you MphLee, well said.