Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Growth of superexponential
#4
(02/27/2013, 02:19 PM)Balarka Sen Wrote: I made an observation : for very small values of z, it seems likely that as b tends towards infinity, b^^z grows to infinity too, but rather slowly. I mean for all
Its not a trivial question. And I had a difficult time getting my kneser.gp algorithm to converge for large bases, though it currently works for b>100000. Here is a related question, that may lead to a fruitful investigation path, and possibly a proof. Can you prove that the for arbitrarily large base=b approaches arbitrarily close to zero? There is a fairly simple linear approximation one can use for tetration for arbitrary bases, that is continuous, and has a continuous first derivative, and works surprisingly well. The estimation uses a straight line linear estimate between and . For example, for base e, the linear approximation is sexp(-1)=0, sexp(1)=1, with a straight line in between, and .

edit: updated approximation equations, and plot
If I did my algebra correctly, than using the linear approximation for sexp for arbitrary bases leads to the estimate for bases>=e and the region from k-1..k has an exponential approximation of . For z>k the approximation switches over to a double exponent. This exponential approximation assumes the linear region includes sexp(0), which is true if base>=e.

This approximation gives sexp(0)=1, and sexp(1)=b, which are both exact. Then you you could conjecture that for large enough bases (empirically, b>9), the actual sexp(k)>e. Also, I would conjecture that for b>9 the approximation is less than actual sexp(z) until z=1, where by definition the approximation is exactly correct once again.

Anyway, such an slog(e) approximation for large bases goes to zero, but very slowly. For b=googleplex=, the approximation is slog(e)=0.0043. For b=10, the approximation is 0.545 and the correct . For b=100, the approximation is 0.396 and the correct value is . For b=100000, the approximation is 0.290, and the correct value is . Here is a graph of sexp_100000(z). The function is surprisingly well behaved in the region of interest. Here, , and the linear approximation region would be from -1.71 to -0.71. The actual sexp is in red, and the linear approximation is in green.
   
- Sheldon


Reply


Messages In This Thread
Growth of superexponential - by Balarka Sen - 02/26/2013, 11:19 AM
RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 02/26/2013, 10:00 PM
RE: Growth of superexponential - by Balarka Sen - 02/27/2013, 02:19 PM
RE: Growth of superexponential - by sheldonison - 02/27/2013, 06:40 PM
RE: Growth of superexponential - by Balarka Sen - 02/27/2013, 07:24 PM
RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 03/01/2013, 12:11 AM
RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 03/06/2013, 11:51 PM
RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 03/06/2013, 11:55 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Between exp^[h] and elementary growth tommy1729 0 992 09/04/2017, 11:12 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Growth rate of the recurrence x(n+1) = x(n) + (arcsinh( x/2 ))^[1/2] ( x(n) )? tommy1729 0 1,683 04/29/2013, 11:29 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  General question on function growth dyitto 2 3,652 03/08/2011, 04:41 PM
Last Post: dyitto
  Nowhere analytic superexponential convergence sheldonison 14 16,699 02/10/2011, 07:22 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  The upper superexponential bo198214 18 19,382 09/18/2009, 04:01 PM
Last Post: Gottfried
  Question about speed of growth Ivars 4 5,681 05/30/2008, 06:12 AM
Last Post: Ivars
  Hilberdink: Uniqueness by order of growth? bo198214 2 3,467 05/30/2008, 12:29 AM
Last Post: andydude
  superexponential below -2 bo198214 10 8,992 05/27/2008, 01:09 PM
Last Post: GFR



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)