Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Infinite tetration giving I*Omega costant=I*0.567143...
#11
bo198214 Wrote:
Ivars Wrote:

What do you mean by ? Btw. has tex code
Code:
\lim_{n\to\infty}
.

Thanks. is n-th iteration of , starting with , when n=0 .

It is the same as in iteration formula (map) , while is next iteration result =angle n+1, I just did not know how to add indexes in tex.

This limit is called rotation or winding number.

In my simulation, when n=1829, =1825.78027070570366694723301.... so

/1829=0.998239623130510479468142710945
Reply
#12
Ivars Wrote:Thanks. is n-th iteration of , starting with , when n=0 .

Ok that means where and .

I put some effort into investigating this sequence . For the case of and that you describe one can see numerically that in the limit for some constant . By this observation we put up:





(1)

If converges we can choose so that converges to 0. In this case the equation has to be satisfied in the limit too:

So that if then
, , where has to be satisfied. Let then all possible solutions are
and for integer . However only one of them is the actual value in .

For example in our case and .

If vice versa is given as above, what conditions are to be satisfied that ?

We put into equation (1), first:
, for simplicity let ,

where we get for solutions and for solutions .

now into (1)


The interesting cases is (a) if and and (b) if and together with c) . We assume in the following that and only consider the case .

If then and only positive values are subtracted from , so satisfies case (a).

If then and the condition is equivalent to .

In this case and as both side are positive we can quadrate getting equivalently:


, let




so case (b) is occurs exactly for

So in the case it is this satisified for all otherwise for
.


As a last step we give conditions for c) .

Let and . In the case that we have to assure that the subtractions of and do not lead below , i.e. at most .

In the case , and we showed already that , so that the subtraction of and the addition of increases . We shall ascertain that .

The condition is easy to check:


Now we know that for , hence the condition is satisfied if we demand:
.

The condition , let and :

.
Similarly to the previous case the condition is satisfied for:
.

We know that is striclty increasing for and (graph it!). Hence there is an such that (which is equivalent to ) for all .

Now going backwards we get

Proposition. Let , , , , and let be the solution of .
If there exists an and integer such that , then , particularly .



Verify the conditions for your choice:
, , , , .

The last condition that , or even the stronger condition that is quite probable for any sufficient chaotic choice of and .

So for your choice but also many other choices for and indeed .

PS: By the length of the derivations I can not exclude that somewhere got an error into the computations, so dont take the result as granted.
Reply
#13
bo198214 Wrote:Ok that means where and .

I put some effort into investigating this sequence . For the case of and that you describe one can see numerically that in the limit for some constant .

Thanks,

It will .... take me some time to digest. I do not quite understand the first assumption,

Quote: one can see numerically that in the limit for some constant .

As far as I did it (1850 terms), nothing is constant-You mean you replaced small difference of sin from -1 with an argument?
But as sin argument nears n*(3pi/2), can You do it?

As I see it since teta(n+1)-teta(n) = 1 when n-> infinity, there shall be no differences between teta(n) and n integer part.

There can not be one also in reals, since limit n->infinity is 1.

So this constant seems suspicious to me-or may be I misunderstood something.

Ivars
Reply
#14
Ivars Wrote:
Quote: one can see numerically that in the limit for some constant .

As far as I did it (1850 terms), nothing is constant-You mean you replaced small difference of sin from -1 with an argument?
But as sin argument nears n*(3pi/2), can You do it?

As I see it since teta(n+1)-teta(n) = 1 when n-> infinity, there shall be no differences between teta(n) and n integer part.

There can not be one also in reals, since limit n->infinity is 1.

So this constant seems suspicious to me-or may be I misunderstood something.

Whats not clear about this?
Just compute with . You see numerically that and that means that in the limit.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [repost] A nowhere analytic infinite sum for tetration. tommy1729 0 882 03/20/2018, 12:16 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Limit of mean of Iterations of f(x)=(ln(x);x>0,ln(-x) x<0) =-Omega constant for all x Ivars 10 13,343 03/29/2015, 08:02 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  [MO] Is there a tetration for infinite cardinalities? (Question in MO) Gottfried 10 10,569 12/28/2014, 10:22 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Remark on Gottfried's "problem with an infinite product" power tower variation tommy1729 4 4,578 05/06/2014, 09:47 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Problem with infinite product of a function: exp(x) = x * f(x)*f(f(x))*... Gottfried 5 6,134 07/17/2013, 09:46 AM
Last Post: Gottfried
  Wonderful new form of infinite series; easy solve tetration JmsNxn 1 4,014 09/06/2012, 02:01 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  the infinite operator, is there any research into this? JmsNxn 2 5,033 07/15/2011, 02:23 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Infinite tetration of the imaginary unit GFR 40 49,082 06/26/2011, 08:06 AM
Last Post: bo198214
  Infinite Pentation (and x-srt-x) andydude 20 23,691 05/31/2011, 10:29 PM
Last Post: bo198214
  Infinite tetration fractal pictures bo198214 15 20,970 07/02/2010, 07:22 AM
Last Post: bo198214



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)