Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved
(06/06/2011, 06:53 AM)bo198214 Wrote: But James, this is not analytic at , if we reformulate:

We can say:


is addition and composition of analytic functions, except this one function . The whole function can not be analytic. I wonder why it looks so smooth.

I like your definition better--it seems sleeker Tongue. I was sort of aware that there was no way I was gonna produce an analytic function over the whole complex domain, I'm happy with analytic in a few regions.
Quote:But I see you gracefully avoided that problem by just defining it for a,b > e Smile
well hopefully I'll be having to tackle that problem soon.

1. , This notation is ambiguous, compare . Please invent a better one!

Alright, from henceforth I shall refer to logarithmic semi operators with the following notation:

And the inverse is given by:

etc etc..

Quote:2. , not \alpha but \circ belongs in the exponent: . This notation is derived from the symbol for function composition .

I knew there was something off about my equations. lol

(06/06/2011, 06:02 AM)sheldonison Wrote: Hey James, try my code snippet, which I updated while you were posting. It will work for values of a and b<e, seamlessly.
- Shel

I'm wary about using for defining bases less than e. My complaints are explained by the following points:

fatb(e+0.0001, 2, pi*I) = -0.999999 - 0.00115551*I
fatb(e+0.0001, 1.8, pi*I) = -1.883265702 - 0.00194696*I
fatb(e+0.0001, 1.5, pi*I) = -5.707515375 - 0.011242371*I
fatb(e+0.0001, 1.3, pi*I) = -4.091499848 - 8.531525563*I
fatb(e+0.0001, 1.1, pi*I) = -1.002757644 - 8.536029475*I
fatb(e+0.0001, 1, pi*I) = -8.53659263001*I

Ignoring the drastic jumps in values, observe the hump that occurs in the real transformation. For no reason the values just spike to -5 randomly. This happens with all regular superfunctions of the logarithm. That's what makes the cheta function unique.

But I think, is it possible to create an upper superfunction for ?, perhaps it will give similar smooth results. Except it will be defined for a,b > 2... at least I think so.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved - by JmsNxn - 06/06/2011, 08:47 AM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thoughts on hyper-operations of rational but non-integer orders? VSO 2 1,182 09/09/2019, 10:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Hyper operators in computability theory JmsNxn 5 5,111 02/15/2017, 10:07 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 1,836 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  holomorphic binary operators over naturals; generalized hyper operators JmsNxn 15 18,838 08/22/2016, 12:19 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  The bounded analytic semiHyper-operators JmsNxn 2 4,236 05/27/2016, 04:03 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Bounded Analytic Hyper operators JmsNxn 25 24,039 04/01/2015, 06:09 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Incredible reduction for Hyper operators JmsNxn 0 2,576 02/13/2014, 06:20 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  interpolating the hyper operators JmsNxn 3 5,797 06/07/2013, 09:03 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Number theory and hyper operators JmsNxn 7 8,864 05/29/2013, 09:24 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Number theoretic formula for hyper operators (-oo, 2] at prime numbers JmsNxn 2 4,566 07/17/2012, 02:12 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)