 Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - Printable Version +- Tetration Forum (https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum) +-- Forum: Tetration and Related Topics (https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Mathematical and General Discussion (https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Thread: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp (/showthread.php?tid=175) Pages: 1 2 3 RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - bo198214 - 06/03/2008 Ivars Wrote:No, for all real points . Such a function can not exist. If then there must exist a such that for all , because otherwise - if in each left neighborhood of there is an with - there is a sequence with which means that does not exist or is 1. But if in whole left neighborhood of then for . RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - Ivars - 06/03/2008 So we have to skip reals. At least formally it seems possible to define such function on hyperreals or superreals (second is more likely as they are discontinued by definition, with gaps) , but as I do not know enough to make such definition I will study a little from both Conway orginal book and Hyperreals, and Cantors ordinals/cardinals because these things does not work without them. It seems that definition of functions on these numbers is not a very popular topic, most works try to link them to real functions as soon as possible, but I have seen brief mentioning of transcendental functions of surreals in the net, as well as surcomplex numbers so far made by simple adding of I to surreals. Here is excerpt of one link I have started to read: Nicolau C Saldanha on surreal functions Quote:Unfortunately, I know of no written reference to this material. I will do my best to reproduce here what I learned from Conway. But first some warnings: - There will be NO talk about continuity or differentiability of surreal functions. In fact, this approach seems inadequate to me, due to the existence of gaps in the surreal line''. - Notice that series can NOT be added using epsilon-delta deffinitions since that would make all non-trivial series diverge by falling into a gap. For instance, we would not have 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +... = 1, since 1 - 1/omega is still larger than any partial sum. When we write such things as 1 + omega^(-1) + omega^(-2) + ... as the Cantor-Conway normal form of a surreal number, this series'' is NOT to be understood in the epsilon-delta sense, lest we get a divergent series. ( By the way, 0.999... = 1 for the surreals ( since it holds for the reals ) in the only'' meaningful sense the expressions have; again, epsilon-delta definitions are out. ) - This does not use explicitly any form of summation like Cesaro's; nor implicitly, as far as I can tell ( I could be wrong ). - This DOES use the technique of defining things inductively, defining x by means of x_L and x_R. This follows the same spirit as the definitions of x + y, x * y, 1/x and the like. And now a most crucial warning: - The ( usual ) extentional notion of a function is NOT adequate here. Two functions assuming the same values at each and every surreal number must be considered DIFFERENT if the left and right options are not the same. As an example, the functions: f(x) = {|}; and g(x) = { g(x_L) - 1 | g(x_R) + 1 }; are both constant equal zero. Usually, we would say that they are the same function --- this is the extentional notion of what a function is: a function is known if its extention, i.e., the values it assumes, are known. Here, however, we have to adopt a radically different point of view: in order to know a function, we have to know how it is defined, and different definitions give different functions even if the values coincide. In this sense, f and g are DIFFERENT. An other way of looking at the situation, less radical but less satisfactory, is to think of functions as having good'' and bad'' definitions. The above definition of f is probably good'', but g is almost certanly bad''. This is means we have to be careful about certain things we usually take for granted. For instance, in a minute we will be defining log as the integral of 1/x. In order to do this, the following definition of 1/x is not satisfactory: 1/x = y iff xy = 1; We now need a recursive, constructive'' definition of the form: 1/x = { ( stuff depending on x, x_L and x_R ) | ( other stuff ) }; such a definition is possible ( but not very easy ) to obtain. Another danger: once we have log, we can't really invert it to get exp: that would give us the values of exp, but not a definition we could use later if we want to use exp to get new functions. Now for the real action. We will adopt the convention: f(x) = { f_L(x,x_L,x_R) | f_R(x,x_L,x_R) }; What follows is a definition of integration. $\int_a^b f(t) dt = { \int_a^{b_L} f(t) dt + \intd_{b_L}^b {f_L}(t) dt , \int_a^{b_R} f(t) dt + \intd_{b_R}^b {f_R}(t) dt , \int_{a_R}^b f(t) dt + \intd_a^{a_R} {f_L}(t) dt , \int_{a_L}^b f(t) dt + \intd_a^{a_L} {f_R}(t) dt | \int_a^{b_L} f(t) dt + \intd_{b_L}^b {f_R}(t) dt , \int_a^{b_R} f(t) dt + \intd_{b_R}^b {f_L}(t) dt , \int_{a_R}^b f(t) dt + \intd_a^{a_R} {f_R}(t) dt , \int_{a_L}^b f(t) dt + \intd_a^{a_L} {f_L}(t) dt }$ I used \TEX notation for integrals, subscripts and superscripts. \intd'' should be written as an integral sign with a capital D' over it, in the middle. It means direct integration, which means do not chop the domain into pieces. Notice that some integrations in the above definition will go from right to left, which means you have to do the usual change of signs. So now you know what log is! You define: log(x) = \int_1^x 1/t dt; This definition is good for any positive surreal number and satisfies all the usual properties. A similar definition can be found for the `solution of the differential equation'' dy/dt = g(t,y); ( Notice we are not *really* talking about derivatives ) from which definitions of exp , sin and cos can be obtained. I will write down the definition later if someone wants me to, but I think it is obvious if you understand the above definition of integration. I am not really sure of this, but I think gamma, bessel, zeta and other functions can be done about as easily. Exercise: Prove the Riemann Hypothesis for the surcomplex numbers. ( :-] ) Intuitively, however, it is relatively easy to see how to define trigonometric functions for all surreals. Just say that TWOPI is a period in the following surreal sense: sin( x + TWOPI*n ) = sin(x); for any surreal x and any n in the class Oz of surreal integers. ( Definition: n is in Oz iff n = { n-1 | n+1 } ) The above definitions have this property. Notice that omega/TWOPI is an integer, and therefore omega is a period. Very roughly, the reason this works is the following: up to day omega ( exclusive ) you have been working only with finite numbers. When the time comes to define cos(omega) and sin(omega) you still have NO information about their values. What you do is of course pick the simplest coherent answer ( this is what you do all the time with surreal numbers ), and this is of course cos(omega) = 1 and sin(omega) = 0. By the same reasoning, cos(omega^r) = 1, sin(omega^r) = 0; for any positive surreal number r. ( This is Cantor's exponentiation, not the analytic one ) By the way, there seems to be someone in Rutgers who is very interested in this stuff. This someone may want to talk about this more directly. Send e-mail or we might talk by telephone sometime. -- Nicolau Corcao Saldanha I have not any opinion about this, yet. Ivars RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - bo198214 - 06/03/2008 Sorry, but I dont see any meaning for hyper operations in defining a fucked up function that is so crude that you can not define them on the reals. That may be an interestic topic for itself but then rather goes in the direction of Cantor sets or general topology. Good luck. RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - Ivars - 06/03/2008 bo198214 Wrote:Sorry, but I dont see any meaning for hyper operations in defining a fucked up function that is so crude that you can not define them on the reals. Well I found a popular citation that expresses my thoughts rather well and perhaps is more authoritative. From my point of view, given the fast divergent nature of hyperoperations, there can not be a better place to use smaller infinitesimals than used in normal calculus than hyperoperations. Quote:According to Kruskal, these problems could disappear if theorists use infinitesimals, numbers smaller than any imaginable positive real numbers. A series that involves such numbers can be prevented from diverging essentially because infinitesimals are so small that they "mop up" any tendency a series might have to zoom off to infinity. "The surreals give us a way of working with infinitesimals, and thus perhaps of working with divergent series," says Kruskal. Divergent integrals, another common bugbear in theoretical physics, may also bow to the surreal approach. Ivars RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - andydude - 06/04/2008 Ivars Wrote:Kruskal Wrote:According to Kruskal, these problems could disappear if theorists use infinitesimals, numbers smaller than any imaginable positive real numbers. You need to learn the difference between divergent and false. Andrew Robbins RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - Ivars - 06/04/2008 bo198214 Wrote:Sorry, but I dont see any meaning for hyper operations in defining a fucked up function that is so crude that you can not define them on the reals. andydude Wrote:You need to learn the difference between divergent and false. The other point is who cares about functions on reals if they are so fucked up in principle that they can not deal with simple reduction of tetration to simpler analysis. Disctinction between true and false in tetration and above can not be determined by the properties of function on reals. But of course this is just uneducated intuitive opinion. Though I do not see a problem to define a function like f(xL,x)= 0, f(x, xR)=1. xL, Where xL, xR are Left and Right surreal numbers between any 2 real values of x.Function is just a unique relationship between 2 sets, be it reals and surreals or what ever. Once defined, it exists. Next step is to study if it has any reasonable properties and does it fit the purpose of understanding hyperoperations. Ivars RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - bo198214 - 06/04/2008 Ivars Wrote:The other point is who cares about functions on reals if they are so fucked up in principle that they can not deal with simple reduction of tetration to simpler analysis. I dont know what you mean, the tetrational functions we considered so far are quite well behaved, continuous or even analytic. There is no complicated analysis needed, as far as I can see. For your function you need complicated analysis, and I still dont see the connection/meaning that it could have for hyperoperations. I know Ivars you are great in speculations, but perhaps then mathematics is not the right discipline for you. In mathematics there is the possibility (and the necessity) to verify things, to verify ideas. If you dont like verifying (and this impression is quite strong) then go to philosphy where nobody can disprove you for sure. The gap between what you know and what you want to be true is just too huge. RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - Ivars - 06/04/2008 bo198214 Wrote:I know Ivars you are great in speculations, but perhaps then mathematics is not the right discipline for you. In mathematics there is the possibility (and the necessity) to verify things, to verify ideas. If you dont like verifying (and this impression is quite strong) then go to philosphy where nobody can disprove you for sure. The gap between what you know and what you want to be true is just too huge. Unfortunately I absolutely am sure that they both converge ultimately ( mathematics and philosophy). So there is no chance to prefer one over another, though the gap you mention is present in both, and my aim is to reduce it as much and as fast as possible using these speculations as motivators. Excuse me for heating up much above the level of clarity of the problem statement I presented. Hyperoperations is the place where new things will be discovered, because they are required by nature to operate, and I want to be part of it, even if only as active observer, if not able to be a contributor really. Ivars RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - Ivars - 12/04/2008 Hi, After some pause, I have found a solution why generalized logarithms will work, despite the proofs by bo, Andy that real number line does not support such extension. I can give only a general confirmation, without details yet. Briefly, because they will take values from INSIDE real number line , where the organization of Real number line will be changed by each level generalized logarithm. From the representation of numbers as ordered lengths of Euclidean straight lines to much more complex ways to organize the Numbers. Each of these INTEGER level number organization ways will be linked to each other via transformation groups of respective projective spaces to spinor spaces (e.g. h(CP1)=Spin(2)). NON-INTEGER levels will be presented by a non-integer iteration point in process a continuous transformation ( like tetration) that maps Real number line with one organization to Real number line with different ordering. Thus, also non-integer operations and dimensions, iterations will obtain their geometric meaning and intuitive understanding will be possible. Here is a link to more detailed first ideas about how tetration transforms +RP1, -RP1, CP1 etc. with comments from Tony Smith about group structure of such transformations. http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/showthread.php?tid=216 Plus some ideas from Tony Smith about this transformation ( still working on it): Quote:CP1 = SU(2) / U(1) = S3 / S1 = S2 by the Hopf fibration S1 -> S3 -> S2 = 2-sphere Since SU(2) = S3 = Spin(3) = 3-sphere and U(1) = S1 = Spin(2) = circle I think that maybe when you write Spin(1) you should be writing U(1) = Spin(2) = circle Since we are talking about a complex projective space CP1 the 2 in Spin(2) may refer to the 2-real-dim nature of 1-complex-dim space. What the Hopf fibration S1 -> S3 -> S2 = CP1 means geometrically is that the 3-sphere S3 looks like a 2-sphere S2 = CP1 with a little circle = S1 = U(1) = Spin(2) attached to each of its points. Tony Ivars RE: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp - BenStandeven - 05/12/2009 (06/04/2008, 07:20 AM)Ivars Wrote: bo198214 Wrote:Sorry, but I dont see any meaning for hyper operations in defining a fucked up function that is so crude that you can not define them on the reals. andydude Wrote:You need to learn the difference between divergent and false. The other point is who cares about functions on reals if they are so fucked up in principle that they can not deal with simple reduction of tetration to simpler analysis. Disctinction between true and false in tetration and above can not be determined by the properties of function on reals. But of course this is just uneducated intuitive opinion. Though I do not see a problem to define a function like f(xL,x)= 0, f(x, xR)=1. xL, Where xL, xR are Left and Right surreal numbers between any 2 real values of x.Function is just a unique relationship between 2 sets, be it reals and surreals or what ever. Once defined, it exists. Next step is to study if it has any reasonable properties and does it fit the purpose of understanding hyperoperations. Ivars Let 0 = {|}, 1 = {0|}, -1 = {|0}, as usual. Then {-1 | 1} = 0. So 1 = f({|0}, 0) = f(-1, 0) = f(-1, {-1 | 1}) = 0. The function is not well-defined. (It would be well-defined on combinatorial games, except that it is of course not defined on all of them.) Also, if f(x^y) = f(x) f(y) on the surreals, then either f is identically 1, f is identically zero, or there is some y with 1^y not equal to 1, or some x with x^1 not equal to x. This follows by bo198214's proof. I daresay all the standard definitions of exponentiation on the surreals have the latter two properties, so if you still want this setup, you'll need a new definition of exponentiation. I would recommend making it commutative, since surreal multiplication is.