• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 proof: Limit of self-super-roots is e^1/e. TPID 6 bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,389 Threads: 90 Joined: Aug 2007 10/07/2009, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 10/07/2009, 08:01 AM by bo198214.) In reply to http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...73#pid4073 First it is easy to see that for $1: ${^n b}=\exp_b^{\circ n}(1)\to a ($a$ is the lower fixed point of $b^x$) Hence for $n_0 > 3$ we have for all $n\ge n_0$: (*) ${^n b} < e < n$ We also know that for $b>\eta$, $\exp_b^{\circ n}\to\infty$ quite fast, particularly for each $b>\eta$ there is an $n_0$ such that for all $n\ge n_0$: (**) ${^n b} > n$. Now we lead proof by contradiction, suppose that $\lim_{n\to\infty} b_n \neq \eta$ where ${^n b_n} = n,\quad b_n > 1$. Then there must be a subsequence $b_{m},\quad m\in M\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ and $\epsilon>0$ such that this subsequence stays always more than $\eps$ apart from $\eta$: $\left|b_{m}-\eta\right| \ge \epsilon$. I.e. there is $B_1<\eta$ and $B_2>\eta$ such that either $b_m \le B_1$ or $b_m \ge B_2$. By (*) and (**) we have $n_0$ such that for all $m\ge n_0$: ${^m B_1} and ${^m B_2}>m$. As ${^m x}$ is monotone increasing for $x>1$ we have also ${^m b_m} and ${^m b_m}>m$. This particularly means ${^m b_m}\neq m$ and hence none of the $b_m$ can be the self superroot, in contradiction to our assumption. andydude Long Time Fellow Posts: 509 Threads: 44 Joined: Aug 2007 10/07/2009, 09:52 PM Wow! Very nice! You make it seem so easy. I've been working on that one for while, ever since the xsrtx thread. Base-Acid Tetration Fellow Posts: 94 Threads: 15 Joined: Apr 2009 07/10/2010, 05:19 AM (This post was last modified: 07/10/2010, 05:32 AM by Base-Acid Tetration.) The same method of proof could possibly be used to easily prove that, possibly for all k>4, limit of self-hyper-k-root(x) as x -> infinity = $\eta_k$ (defined as the largest real x such that $x[k]\infty < \infty$, i.e. where the maximum of self-hyper-(k-1)-root function occurs; let's establish this notation); yeah I know, I only substituted the pentation-analogues into the proof and quickly checked. bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,389 Threads: 90 Joined: Aug 2007 07/10/2010, 09:13 AM (07/10/2010, 05:19 AM)Base-Acid Tetration Wrote: The same method of proof could possibly be used to easily prove that, possibly for all k>4 The thing is: to define the hyper k-self-root you need a hyper (k-1) operation defined on the reals. And we still have several methods of doing this without equality proofs. « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Is bugs or features for fatou.gp super-logarithm? Ember Edison 10 2,765 08/07/2019, 02:44 AM Last Post: Ember Edison A fundamental flaw of an operator who's super operator is addition JmsNxn 4 6,940 06/23/2019, 08:19 PM Last Post: Chenjesu Can we get the holomorphic super-root and super-logarithm function? Ember Edison 10 3,362 06/10/2019, 04:29 AM Last Post: Ember Edison Where is the proof of a generalized integral for integer heights? Chenjesu 2 1,001 03/03/2019, 08:55 AM Last Post: Chenjesu Inverse super-composition Xorter 11 12,957 05/26/2018, 12:00 AM Last Post: Xorter The super 0th root and a new rule of tetration? Xorter 4 3,988 11/29/2017, 11:53 AM Last Post: Xorter Sexp redefined ? Exp^[a]( - 00 ). + question ( TPID 19 ??) tommy1729 0 1,594 09/06/2016, 04:23 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Solving tetration using differintegrals and super-roots JmsNxn 0 1,920 08/22/2016, 10:07 PM Last Post: JmsNxn Flexible etas and eulers ? TPID 10 tommy1729 0 1,452 08/19/2016, 12:09 PM Last Post: tommy1729 (almost) proof of TPID 13 fivexthethird 1 2,323 05/06/2016, 04:12 PM Last Post: JmsNxn

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)