Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp
#21
I think the easiest proof is



which can only be true for a constant function.
Reply
#22
(04/14/2011, 11:16 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: I think the easiest proof is



which can only be true for a constant function.

But this would need a bit more explanation *why* constancy follows from that. And then its not that short anymore Wink

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The AB functions ! tommy1729 0 1,368 04/04/2017, 11:00 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  the inverse ackerman functions JmsNxn 3 5,476 09/18/2016, 11:02 AM
Last Post: Xorter
  Look-alike functions. tommy1729 1 1,822 03/08/2016, 07:10 PM
Last Post: hixidom
  Inverse power tower functions tommy1729 0 1,707 01/04/2016, 12:03 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  [2014] composition of 3 functions. tommy1729 0 1,629 08/25/2014, 12:08 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Intresting functions not ? tommy1729 4 4,674 03/05/2014, 06:49 PM
Last Post: razrushil
  generalizing the problem of fractional analytic Ackermann functions JmsNxn 17 20,619 11/24/2011, 01:18 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Discrete-analytic functions Ansus 4 5,352 07/30/2011, 04:46 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  product functions tommy1729 5 5,974 06/01/2011, 05:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Periodic functions that are periodic not by addition JmsNxn 0 2,583 04/17/2011, 09:54 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)