Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Uniqueness of Ansus' extended sum superfunction
#1
First let me recapitulate the method from my point of view.
We start with as usual with a function and want to obtain a superfunction of it, i.e. a function that satisfies
(1) .
Now by differentiating once we get

expanding twice:

and generally by induction:

making our new variable:


To extend the product to non-integer we have a look at the sum
(2)

Extending the sum to non-integer boundaries

The sum can extended to non-integer values via Faulhaber's formula which provides the sum for monomials:

,
where is the -th Bernoulli polynomial with the Bernoulli numbers.

The sum operator is linear for natural boundaries so one can extend Faulhaber's formula to linear combinations of monomials (also called polynomials Wink ), and finally to powerseries. So for non-integer we define for
the extended sum .

To simplify the matter we can define the antidifference or indefinite sum:

and get


Extended sum and shifts

We hope that the extended sum behaves like a normal sum with integer boundaries, e.g. we want to have
(3) .

We show it for polynomials. Let be a polynomial of degree , then we know that (3) is satisfied for all integers and both sides are polynomials of maximal degree in . But equality at different points already implies the equality of both polynomials.
Hence not only for integer but for every the equality holds.
This than carries over to powerseries (as limit of a polynomial sequence) if no convergence issues arise.

This property lets us formulate (2) in a much nicer way by applying (3) with and afterwards setting :

(4)

Uniqueness of extended sum superfunction
Sketch of proof:

Let beside be another at analytic super-exponential (1) that satisfies (2). We further assume and to be invertible at and . We set in a vicinity of , so there.

and by (1) so for integer .

So put into (4), with :

the left difference can be replaced with (4), knowing :
(5)

Now consider the forward difference
.
Hence
for any up to perhaps a constant, so
.

Now we apply this to (5):



together with and this gives and , so and .
Reply
#2
nice proof!

Does this prove the uniqueness for all tetration? i.e. that all tetrations are equal where they are invertible, since they are supposed to be analytic, equal to 1 at 0, and is a superfunction of exponentiation, ex hypothesis.

bo198214 Wrote:if no convergence issues arise.

I am confused on exactly what the problem you tetration guys are trying to solve with tetration.
I am guessing that it may be convergence or holomorphicity.
Reply
#3
(09/06/2009, 04:56 AM)Tetratophile Wrote: Does this prove the uniqueness for all tetration? i.e. that all tetrations are equal where they are invertible, since they are supposed to be analytic, equal to 1 at 0, and is a superfunction of exponentiation, ex hypothesis.

No, this is particularly about Ansus' construction, i.e. all tetrations that satisfy (4) are equal. There are so far no numerical testing on the other tetrations, I will see what I can do about this in the next time.

Quote:
bo198214 Wrote:if no convergence issues arise.

I am confused on exactly what the problem you tetration guys are trying to solve with tetration.
I am guessing that it may be convergence or holomorphicity.

Most methods compute coefficients of powerseries as limits of some computations.
To be on solid ground we need to prove that:
1. The limit for each coefficient exists.
2. The resulting series has non-zero convergence radius.
Nothing of that is proved neither for the matrix power method, the intuitive method nor Ansus' extended sum method.
Though numerically everything looks good.
3. Also it would be nice to prove that the corresponding super-exponential is holomorphic on C without (-oo,-2]. Which also looks good numerically.
Reply
#4
(09/06/2009, 06:54 AM)bo198214 Wrote: 3. Also it would be nice to prove that the corresponding super-exponential is holomorphic on C without (-oo,-2]. Which also looks good numerically.

but I dont think it is.

i will give arguments when i find the time...
Reply
#5
@Bo

In post 1 for your proof I doubt the statements concerning the forward difference.

Could you elaborate on that ? I prefer no use of triangles and clear brackets to avoid confusion.
Afterall this is continuum summation and the hard subject called tetration.

I doubt the uniqueness.

regards

tommy1729
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Extended xor to Tetrion space Xorter 10 4,322 08/18/2018, 02:54 AM
Last Post: 11Keith22
  A conjectured uniqueness criteria for analytic tetration Vladimir Reshetnikov 13 9,915 02/17/2017, 05:21 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Uniqueness of half-iterate of exp(x) ? tommy1729 14 13,433 01/09/2017, 02:41 AM
Last Post: Gottfried
  Removing the branch points in the base: a uniqueness condition? fivexthethird 0 1,380 03/19/2016, 10:44 AM
Last Post: fivexthethird
  Natural cyclic superfunction tommy1729 3 2,687 12/08/2015, 12:09 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  [2014] Uniqueness of periodic superfunction tommy1729 0 1,760 11/09/2014, 10:20 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Real-analytic tetration uniqueness criterion? mike3 25 19,383 06/15/2014, 10:17 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  exp^[1/2](x) uniqueness from 2sinh ? tommy1729 1 2,037 06/03/2014, 09:58 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Uniqueness Criterion for Tetration jaydfox 9 10,480 05/01/2014, 10:21 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  twice a superfunction tommy1729 5 4,939 03/26/2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: MphLee



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)