(10/30/2022, 06:16 PM)MphLee Wrote: Do you have any idea about how to go for it?

How would you address the fact that the fundamental sequence concept and the transfinite constructions is based on the well order structure of ordinals while complex numbers are a number system that is inherently un-orderable in a compatible algebraic way?

My idea is that it may be possible to do complex iteration on the function that maps \(f_\alpha\) to \(f_{\alpha+1}\), using a similar uniqueness criteria to

this uniqueness criteria for tetration. And then, once we have \(f_\omega\) defined for complex numbers, we could again do complex iteration on the function that maps \(f_\alpha\) to \(f_{\alpha+1}\), and define \(f_{\omega*2}\) for complex numbers. And then, doing iteration on the function that maps \(f_{\omega*\alpha}\) to \(f_{\omega*(\alpha+1)}\), \(f_{\omega^2}\) could be defined for complex numbers.

You could keep iterating and iterating iteration, and so on, until you eventually do complex iteration on the function that maps \(f_{\omega\uparrow\uparrow\alpha}\) to \(f_{\omega\uparrow\uparrow(\alpha+1)}\), and define \(H_{\varepsilon_0}\) for complex numbers!!!!

Of course, this sound ludicrously difficult.

Just because complex numbers are inherently un-orderable in a compatible algebraic way, does not mean they can not be put into ordinal hierarchies. For example, in the

slow-growing hierarchy, \(g_{\varepsilon_0}(z)=z\uparrow\uparrow\uparrow2\), which is definable for complex numbers.

Please remember to stay hydrated.

ฅ(ﾐ⚈ ﻌ ⚈ﾐ)ฅ Sincerely: Catullus /ᐠ_ ꞈ _ᐟ\