This is a rather disturbing flaw that I've come across with zeration that rather surprises me the authors didn't consider.
By the Ackermann function:
}\,\,a\,\,\bigtriangleup_\sigma\,\,(a\,\,\bigtriangleup_{\sigma +1 }\,\,b) = a\,\,\bigtriangleup_{\sigma + 1}\,\,b+1)
which is the core of how the function is defined.
I'm gonna put it right out there that zeration DOES NOT satisfy this property.
by definition:
 + 1)
or
Take the obvious example, a > 0:
) = max(a, a-1) + 1 = a + 1)
however, by Ackermann's law (I):
) = a + (-1) + 1 = a)
Did anybody else notice this? How could they over look such a fatal flaw? I mean it took me fifteen minutes of research to see this?
It can actually be extended generally to all negative numbers
 = a + 1)
however by (I) we know it must be
 = a - k + 1)
Clearly Zeration is not the operator below addition in the Ackermann function.
By the Ackermann function:
which is the core of how the function is defined.
I'm gonna put it right out there that zeration DOES NOT satisfy this property.
by definition:
or
Take the obvious example, a > 0:
however, by Ackermann's law (I):
Did anybody else notice this? How could they over look such a fatal flaw? I mean it took me fifteen minutes of research to see this?
It can actually be extended generally to all negative numbers
however by (I) we know it must be
Clearly Zeration is not the operator below addition in the Ackermann function.