Talk:Joyce's More Generalized Exponential Notation

I think the second paragraph may be overstating the case. It's poorly defined, but to be ill-defined it would have to be completely unintelligible. The examples support that the base case is 1, and the terminating rule is to remove leading 1s. The rules define the 4th, 5th and 6th argument perfectly well, although the rule for the 4th argument does not lead to g(n,a,b,c) being a strictly increasing function for constants a,b,c with respect to n. This however has little to no effect on the rules for the 5th and 6th argument however. It's probably fair to say the definition is incomplete, since there is no explicit rules past the 6th argument. But it's not required that the g-function be generalized to a polyadic function. It just means that the 7-argument expressions aren't defined. Sbiis Saibian (talk) 05:34, May 2, 2014 (UTC)