Hmm.
Oh yeah, about the thing with the "g": I was thinking the function was \( b^x \) not \( \log(a) (e^x - 1) \), although now that I read it again I see it now. I guess the inconsistent notation with the paper was throwing me off. So then would I be right in interpreting "\( g \)" in the posts as what is called "\( f \)" in the paper, and what is called "\( g^{\circ t} \)" in the posts as what is called "\( g \)" in the paper? (i.e. I'm trying to figure out how to map the notation from your posts to that of the paper so I can get the recursive-generating formula going)
Oh yeah, about the thing with the "g": I was thinking the function was \( b^x \) not \( \log(a) (e^x - 1) \), although now that I read it again I see it now. I guess the inconsistent notation with the paper was throwing me off. So then would I be right in interpreting "\( g \)" in the posts as what is called "\( f \)" in the paper, and what is called "\( g^{\circ t} \)" in the posts as what is called "\( g \)" in the paper? (i.e. I'm trying to figure out how to map the notation from your posts to that of the paper so I can get the recursive-generating formula going)