User blog comment:B1mb0w/Rule 2B/@comment-27513631-20160206233504/@comment-10262436-20160206235409

Hi.

zeta_1 is the supremum of {z_0, z_0^z_0, z_0^z_0^z,0, ...} = z_0^^w. This is exactly my argument. My Rule 2B extrapolates this for any value of the Veblen function. It seems to me that defining this sequence as e_{z_0+1} is logically sound, but adds little to our understanding.

Just to be clear, are you agreeing that supremum of z_1 = z_0^^w = e_{z_0+1} ?

Thanks