Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Means and intermediate operations (was: Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved)
#1
(06/08/2011, 11:47 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: However, I am willing to concede the idea of changing from base eta to base root 2.

That is to say if we define:



This will give the time honoured result, and aesthetic necessity in my point of view, of:
for all .

I like this also because it makes and potentially analytic over since 2 and 4 are fix points.

I also propose writing


I thought about this for some time and considered interpolation between arithmetic mean and geometric mean, coming to a rather curious result. The 'mean' function with fails to satisfy a property of means:

Define This yields the arithmetic mean for and the geometric mean for .
For ,




So it's not a 'true mean' in the sense that the scalar multiplication property fails. This result makes me doubt that the property may be satisfied for . Is there a way to rectify this issue, i.e. find a solution with and such that the property is satisfied?
Reply
#2
(06/14/2011, 04:22 AM)Cherrina_Pixie Wrote: I thought about this for some time and considered interpolation between arithmetic mean and geometric mean, coming to a rather curious result. The 'mean' function with fails to satisfy a property of means:

Define This yields the arithmetic mean for and the geometric mean for .

I just want to add the observation that:
and satisfy the modified property
.
Reply
#3
(06/14/2011, 09:17 AM)bo198214 Wrote: I just want to add the observation that:
and satisfy the modified property
.

And if we define


then we have for integers (and even non-integers) s=t and s=t-1:

Reply
#4
Actually, I think if we use logarithmic semi-operators to notate this:

if

then:
for

This means, that multiplication isn't spreadable across [0,1], but logarithmic semi-operator multiplication is spreadable across [0,1]. Or put mathematically:


and


This should hold for complex numbers. Given the restriction on sigma. bo pretty much already noted this though, I just thought I'd give it a go Tongue.

I'm not sure if there's anything really interesting you can do with these averages.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Has anyone solved iterations of z+Γ(z)? Leo.W 5 1,831 01/07/2022, 08:15 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Intresting ternary operations ? tommy1729 0 3,356 06/11/2015, 08:18 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Change of base formula using logarithmic semi operators JmsNxn 4 12,889 07/08/2011, 08:28 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  book: the theory of fractional powers of operators bo198214 2 9,313 06/22/2010, 07:30 PM
Last Post: Ztolk
  f( f(x) ) = exp(x) solved ! ! ! tommy1729 25 35,250 02/17/2009, 12:30 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Rational sums of inverse powers of fixed points of e jaydfox 14 27,076 11/23/2007, 08:22 AM
Last Post: bo198214
  A more consistent definition of tetration of tetration for rational exponents UVIR 21 37,213 10/21/2007, 10:47 PM
Last Post: UVIR



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)