H₀ tension in Tsallis and Rényi statistics

⚠️ Mathematical Errors Found (CRITICAL)
Equation (6) apparently contains numeric factors that appear to be incorrectly typed, leading to conflicting numeric results for qCMB (e.g., 131.03 vs ~1884.5) and indicating a serious typographical or algebraic mistake.

💥 Impact: These inconsistencies call into question the precise numerical constraints derived from the paper’s equations, potentially undermining key conclusions about H0 tension.

⚠️ Found Discrepancies
There is at least one numerical inconsistency in the relationships derived for qSN and qCMB, specifically in equation (6) versus the stated final value for qCMB.

👶 For a child:
This paper talks about why scientists measure different values for how quickly the universe is expanding and suggests special math ideas might reveal why.

🎓 For college students:
This work explores whether generalized (Tsallis and Rényi) statistical approaches, linked to modified uncertainty principles, can help explain the discrepancy between supernova and CMB measurements of the current Hubble expansion rate.

🧪 For PhD students:
This paper utilizes Tsallis- and Rényi-based energy-time uncertainty relations to probe possible non-extensive parameters consistent with current supernova vs CMB Hubble parameter tensions, thereby constraining or motivating new physics in gravitational and cosmological frameworks.