Ackermann function and hyper operations - 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: Ackermann function and hyper operations ( /showthread.php?tid=338) |

Ackermann function and hyper operations - andydude - 08/23/2009
I wanted to say something about the first part, "1 Introduction". In this part of the paper, you equate the original Ackermann function with a[n]b, which (stictly speaking) is not true. Robert Munafo has discussed this on his website (http://www.mrob.com/pub/math/largenum.html), and I have also verified this for myself by reading the original paper Ackermann wrote. Ackermann's tetration is a function which is an offset from tetration. Because it is an offset of tetration, is not pentation at all. It wasn't until Reuben Goodstein that the "offset" disappeared. I think we should take this into account when discussing the original Ackermann function, because its evolution is way more complicated than any introduction can really summarize. The Ackermann function - bo198214 - 08/23/2009
@Andrew: Good! Thats a very attentive observation. While verifying myself I found that the deviation (up to a difference of 1 in the rank) from our operator sequence comes from forming an unnecessary odd initial condition. I dont know why he does, perhaps it is more suitable for his proof of non-primitive recursiveness. In his article Ackermann, W. (1928 ). Zum Hilbertschen Aufbau der reellen Zahlen. Math. Ann., 99, 118–133. Ackermann defines: . Where in our notation ( is a free variable here to determine the argument of the function to be applied). So everything would be good if the initial value was for . Then would . But instead Ackermann defines: where and in today notation with the Kronecker-. This definition is hence equivalent to: for for for as he also mentiones in his paper. So he introduces a third initial value besides 0 and 1 which causes the deviation from our operator sequence: . PS: Munafo gives a very detailed description of the different versions of the Ackermann-function here. It is a very good reference to show to someone for explaining about different versions of the Ackermann-function. All glory to Andrew for digging out such references. RE: The Ackermann function - andydude - 08/24/2009
Also, about a month ago, I redesigned the Hyperoperation page, to try and explain these differences. RE: The Ackermann function - bo198214 - 04/18/2011
(08/23/2009, 09:45 AM)bo198214 Wrote: While verifying myself I found that the deviation (up to a difference of 1 in the rank) from our operator sequence comes from forming an unnecessary odd initial condition. I dont know why he does, perhaps it is more suitable for his proof of non-primitive recursiveness. Oh now I found out where this odd initial conditions comes from! I assert that Ackermann originally wanted to define left-braced hyperoperations! Then this initial condition for makes sense! Left-braced hyperoperations would similarly be defined by: here again we have and . But the forth operation is not as one would obtain with the initial condition , but it is due to the initial value ! So this initial condition makes left-braced hyperoperations look simpler, while it makes right-braced hyperoperations looking odd. I think he started with the left-braced hyperoperations and then switched to the faster growing right-braced hyperoperations, perhaps it was more suitable for his proof of non-primitive recursiveness of |