I ask why 100 is right or wrong because, in the face of 999, it's difficult to see why it's correct. And yet you think that the exponentiation of three 9's is correct in the face of the tetration of three 9's. The latter is astronomically larger than 999 is to 100, meaning that 100 is not as bad of an answer.

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?