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
  Thoughts on hyper-operations of rational but non-integer orders? VSO 2 153 09/09/2019, 10:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Could there be an "arctic geometry" by raising the rank of all operations? Syzithryx 2 311 07/24/2019, 05:59 PM
Last Post: Syzithryx
  Hyper operators in computability theory JmsNxn 5 3,450 02/15/2017, 10:07 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 1,333 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved JmsNxn 30 35,373 09/02/2016, 02:11 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  holomorphic binary operators over naturals; generalized hyper operators JmsNxn 15 15,301 08/22/2016, 12:19 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  The bounded analytic semiHyper-operators JmsNxn 2 3,271 05/27/2016, 04:03 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Intresting ternary operations ? tommy1729 0 1,470 06/11/2015, 08:18 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  on constructing hyper operations for bases > eta JmsNxn 1 2,444 04/08/2015, 09:18 PM
Last Post: marraco
  Bounded Analytic Hyper operators JmsNxn 25 18,021 04/01/2015, 06:09 PM
Last Post: MphLee



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)