Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Change of base formula for Tetration
#5
jaydfox Wrote:First, we need the constant of base conversion. It's essenstially a form of superlogarithmic constant. Think of it as the equivalent of the constant used for converting , assuming a and b are positive real numbers. We can find by taking a and b to very high integer powers:



By analogy, for tetration, we're going to tetrate them each a large number of times. However, as you will see, tetration to integer powers won't work, not if we want to find the superlogarithmic constant. If the superlogarithmic constant isn't an integer, you can only approximate without an exact solution for one of the bases. In other words, in almost all cases, we must have an exact solution for fractional iteration for at least one of the bases. That doesn't mean the constant doesn't exist, only that we can't uniquely determine its value without an exact solution for some base.



In a twist of irony, the logarithmic constant for exponentiation (hyper-3) is multiplicative (hyper-2), but the superlogarithmic constant for tetration (hyper-4) is additive (hyper-1). And I say it's a "superlogarithmic" constant, but it should not be confused with . I think they're related, but I haven't pinned down the nature of the relationship yet. This will require more study.
I should have trusted my first instinct. I called it a "superlogarithmic constant". As it turns out:



And there you have it. We've got an exact formula for base conversion of tetration, and an exact formula for finding the superlogarithmic constant. But these two facts together are only sufficient to solve for integer tetration and integer superlogarithms (i.e., where the slog_b(x) = n, n an integer).

We need only 1 exact solution to fill in all the gaps. But the solution must be unique. If we find "a" solution that is not "the" solution, then we get the wrong solution for all bases. In theory, if we find "the" solution for any base, we've found it for all of them, because we have an exact base conversion formula.

Edit: It really bugs me that all the tags in TeX start with backslashes, but the closing [/tex] tag starts with a forward slash.
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 jaydfox - 08/12/2007, 04:34 PM
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 1,658 08/14/2019, 09:15 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 1,462 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Is bounded tetration is analytic in the base argument? JmsNxn 0 1,285 01/02/2017, 06:38 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Extrapolated Faá Di Bruno's Formula Xorter 1 2,037 11/19/2016, 02:37 PM
Last Post: Xorter
  [2015] 4th Zeration from base change pentation tommy1729 5 5,607 03/29/2015, 05:47 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Conjecture on semi-exp base change [2015] tommy1729 0 1,665 03/24/2015, 03:14 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tetration base sqrt(e) tommy1729 2 3,246 02/14/2015, 12:36 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Explicit formula for the tetration to base [tex]e^{1/e}[/tex]? mike3 1 2,883 02/13/2015, 02:26 PM
Last Post: Gottfried
  tetration base > exp(2/5) tommy1729 2 3,034 02/11/2015, 12:29 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  about power towers and base change tommy1729 7 7,942 05/04/2014, 08:30 AM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)