I never said otherwise, why do you state the obvious?
> and it's pretty poor ethic to discuss psychology here before understanding someone's argument.
It's pretty poor ethic to proclaim one's understanding of another's mindset as fact without having asked them if it such or them having declared it. You have no place to try and claim what her logic was.
> I could just as well say that you are narrow-minded for not entertaining my perspective when I have given analysis for yours.
I did entertain and i found it wanting, as explained above.
> textual questions inherently have more than one answers [care to explain?]
Every text is open for interpretation and its understanding always depends on any assumptions made while reading it. Be ware of assuming that your assumptions about assumptions made actually match reality.
Further, particularly in schooling, tests serve to ask whether understanding exists or not. I have repeatedly gotten full grades on problems where i applied the correct method and described it accurately, even when along the way a small oversight in numerical operations resulted in a wrong final number.
> can you explain if you think 100 is correct?
Why should i? I don't understand why you ask this. Please explain yourself if you think it truly merits discussion.
> Tetration is typographically written as the reverse of 9^9^9 on paper.
So, sub-script instead of super-script?
In the face of this, do you still wish to make, in good faith, the point that exponentiation of 9's is correct by virtue of typographic implicitness because textual answers have more than one answer? And because exponentiation (and tetration) is just sooo visually implicit it should count as "only digits"? Let's be clear that they brought in a lawyer to argue from the basis of typography.
And your last question seeks to clarify the typography of tetration. Maybe I shouldn't have said reverse. It's more like the typographic mirror, except the 9's aren't reversed (I'm afraid you're the miserly and uncharitable kind of debater, so I had to clarify that last bit about the 9's).
It's disappointing to me that even though you opened the door to discussion of how I am narrow-minded, that you are so evasive and defensive when I turn the question back, suggesting, how dare I, when I have run afoul by assuming that the young girl exercised typographic thinking?
Context matters. You're smart, i'm sure you'll figure this out eventually.
This is the ad hominem that you think as honest and simple. Anyone who disagrees with this perspective will have a very narrow mind.
Anyone could think of a trivial example with a clear answer, like, "What's 3 + 5?" And you'd be saying that anyone who thinks there's only one answer to that is very narrow minded.
You're basically arguing that (1) textual questions inherently have more than one answers [care to explain?], and that (2) therefore 9^9^9 is correct [can you explain if you think 100 is correct?], and as an additional tack-on point, you think that (3) operators are fair play as long as they're implicit, even though there's nothing mathematically special about them except for the typography.
Tetration is typographically written as the reverse of 9^9^9 on paper.