Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension
(06/27/2009, 09:39 AM)bo198214 Wrote: [quote='tommy1729' pid='3446' dateline='1246053079']
as for the radius of convergence :

let A be the smallest fixpoint => b^A = A

then ( andrew's ! ) slog(z) with base b should satisfy :

slog(z) = slog(b^z) - 1

=> slog(A) = slog(b^A) - 1

=> slog(A) = slog(A) - 1

=> abs ( slog(A) ) = oo

so the radius should be smaller or equal to abs(A)
Its not only valid for Andrew's slog but for every slog and also not only for the smallest but for every fixed point.
However not completely:
One can not expect the slog to satisfy slog(e^z)=slog(z)+1 *everywhere*.
Its a bit like with the logarithm, it does not satisfy log(ab)=log(a)+log(b) *everywhere*.
What we however can say is that log(ab)=log(a)+log(b) *up to branches*. I.e. for every occuring log in the equation there is a suitable branch such that the equation holds.
The same can be said about the slog equation.
So if we can show that Andrew's slog satisfies slog(e^z)=slog(z)+1 e.g. for then it must have a singularity at A.


of course for 'every' fixed point ! Smile

i know that silly :p

but the smallest is of course closest to the origin , so that is the one i considered , since i wanted the radius ( which is the distance to the origin )

i completely agree with you Sir Bo ( or whatever you like to be called :p )

but now seriously.

andrew nowhere mentioned " branches " or even the complex plane in his paper.

well , at least not in the pdf's of his website.

i personally feel like those branches are one of the most important topics in tetration debate.

*** warning : highly speculating below ***

as for your * everywhere * , in general i think you are correct , but maybe some bases do satisfy that ' almost everywhere ' ?

i think the only exceptions for some bases are numbers a_i

sexp(slog(a_i) + x ) = a_i for positive real x.

however thats quite ' alot ' ( uncountable and dense )


i often like to consider invariant and branches as ' inverses '


exp( x + 2pi i ) <-> log(x) + 2 pi i

following that ' philosophy '

the branch(es) of slog(z) we are looking for are the invariants of sexp(z)

just some quick musings , plz forgive any blunders , im an impulsive poster with little time Smile

also forgive me if this has been discussed before , like eg many years ago , im only here since a few months.



Messages In This Thread
Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension - by bo198214 - 08/07/2007, 04:38 PM
RE: Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension - by tommy1729 - 06/28/2009, 12:08 AM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Possible continuous extension of tetration to the reals Dasedes 0 1,673 10/10/2016, 04:57 AM
Last Post: Dasedes
  Non-trivial extension of max(n,1)-1 to the reals and its iteration. MphLee 3 4,618 05/17/2014, 07:10 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  extension of the Ackermann function to operators less than addition JmsNxn 2 4,737 11/06/2011, 08:06 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Tetration Extension to Real Heights chobe 3 7,045 05/15/2010, 01:39 AM
Last Post: bo198214
  Tetration extension for bases between 1 and eta dantheman163 16 22,292 12/19/2009, 10:55 AM
Last Post: bo198214
  Extension of tetration to other branches mike3 15 24,360 10/28/2009, 07:42 AM
Last Post: bo198214
  andrew slog tommy1729 1 3,910 06/17/2009, 06:37 PM
Last Post: bo198214
  Dmitrii Kouznetsov's Tetration Extension andydude 38 43,881 11/20/2008, 01:31 AM
Last Post: Kouznetsov
  Hooshmand's extension of tetration andydude 9 11,941 08/14/2008, 04:48 AM
Last Post: Danesh

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)