User blog comment:Tetramur/Pentational arrays and beyond - comparisons/@comment-37993808-20200108154849

> By the way, according to Tetramur, Bowers' explanation is compatible with Saibian's one. So if Tetramur is honest and understands Bowers' explanation correctly, then Bowers finially changed the intended behaviour, right...? The situation will be more confusing. I hope Tetramur to show evidence of the statement.

Clearly I will.

So, let's take small array, as X^^X & a. By Bowers and Saibian, X^^X has infinite height. But in computation we take only a finite part of it. X is infinite, but in computation we take only p elements by each side - this is called a prime block. So, p elements in a row, p^2 elements in a plane... p^^p elements in image of tetrational hypercube of X^^X. Once more. X^^X is infinite, but p^^p - the prime block - is finite. Now we must use prime block's function (Bowers hasn't defined it, he only mentions it, but I assume it is defined). In each of higher structures we take p elements on each side. So, X^^(X+1) transforms into p^^(p+1) elements. Both show us climbing method, but Saibian's work is more detailed and shows us ORDINALS, and Bowers should show us STRUCTURES and PRIME BLOCKS. Not "the way it is intended to work", but "how it works". Bowers didn't change the intended behaviour, as far as I understood.