Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Change of base formula for Tetration
#39
jaydfox Wrote:To put this into perspective, think about the iterated multiplication formula (you know, exponentation). Let's say that we know that 2^4 equals 4^2 and 2^6 equals 4^3. In fact, let's say that for all integers k, we know that 2^2k = 4^k.

Wouldn't you expect 2^3 to equal 4^1.5? That's essentially the basis for my initial confidence that my change of base formula was correct. I had found that it was correct for all integer tetrations, so why should I have the slightest concern that it wouldn't be correct for fractional tetrations? It would be as absurd as doubting that 2^3 equals 4^1.5.

Though I did not understand everything you wrote, this is a base problem of tetration (imposed by right-bracketing). For most values is:
particularely we cannot define the n-th super root by because .

Quote:Barring a really good reason, I'd be perfectly fine saying that Andrew's solution was in error, not mine. And yet the positive/convex nature of the odd derivatives of his solution is so beautiful as to make all my doubts melt away. I cannot fathom that Andrew's solution is wrong.
Attributes like "wrong" or "right" are completely inappropriate here.
In the realm of mathematics we assign a "right" if we can prove it and a "wrong" if we can disprove it.
Of course much research is a pursue of beauty but this is in the eye of the beholder. I would leave it there.

Quote:It'd be like saying that , where log_2(4,x) is no longer a constant, but a function of x that is cyclic though very nearly constant. Absurd!

I mean the interrelation between -th superroot and superpowers for real t, was not yet considered on this forum. How much differs from the -th superroot ?

Quote:We must find some underlying reason why having all the odd derivatives be convex is a desirable property, besides the fact that there is (almost certainly) only one such solution per base. Uniqueness alone is insufficient, because my solution is unique in its own way and based on "the" unique solution for base eta.
As far as I know we couldnt prove any uniqueness conditions yet.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Change of base formula for Tetration - by jaydfox - 08/12/2007, 06:39 AM
RE: Change of base formula for Tetration - by bo198214 - 08/31/2007, 09:03 AM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by jaydfox - 08/15/2007, 09:19 PM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by bo198214 - 08/15/2007, 09:30 PM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by jaydfox - 08/15/2007, 11:41 PM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by bo198214 - 08/16/2007, 08:17 AM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by jaydfox - 08/16/2007, 05:51 PM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by bo198214 - 08/16/2007, 06:40 PM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by jaydfox - 08/16/2007, 09:47 PM
RE: Parabolic Iteration - by bo198214 - 08/16/2007, 10:07 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Complex Tetration, to base exp(1/e) Ember Edison 7 615 08/14/2019, 09:15 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 1,259 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Is bounded tetration is analytic in the base argument? JmsNxn 0 1,093 01/02/2017, 06:38 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Extrapolated Faá Di Bruno's Formula Xorter 1 1,742 11/19/2016, 02:37 PM
Last Post: Xorter
  [2015] 4th Zeration from base change pentation tommy1729 5 5,008 03/29/2015, 05:47 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Conjecture on semi-exp base change [2015] tommy1729 0 1,493 03/24/2015, 03:14 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tetration base sqrt(e) tommy1729 2 2,931 02/14/2015, 12:36 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Explicit formula for the tetration to base [tex]e^{1/e}[/tex]? mike3 1 2,582 02/13/2015, 02:26 PM
Last Post: Gottfried
  tetration base > exp(2/5) tommy1729 2 2,720 02/11/2015, 12:29 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  about power towers and base change tommy1729 7 7,140 05/04/2014, 08:30 AM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)