• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 Growth of superexponential sheldonison Long Time Fellow    Posts: 633 Threads: 22 Joined: Oct 2008 02/27/2013, 06:40 PM (This post was last modified: 02/28/2013, 11:32 AM by sheldonison.) (02/27/2013, 02:19 PM)Balarka Sen Wrote: I made an observation : for very small values of z, it seems likely that as b tends towards infinity, b^^z grows to infinity too, but rather slowly. I mean for all Its not a trivial question. And I had a difficult time getting my kneser.gp algorithm to converge for large bases, though it currently works for b>100000. Here is a related question, that may lead to a fruitful investigation path, and possibly a proof. Can you prove that the for arbitrarily large base=b approaches arbitrarily close to zero? There is a fairly simple linear approximation one can use for tetration for arbitrary bases, that is continuous, and has a continuous first derivative, and works surprisingly well. The estimation uses a straight line linear estimate between and . For example, for base e, the linear approximation is sexp(-1)=0, sexp(1)=1, with a straight line in between, and . edit: updated approximation equations, and plot If I did my algebra correctly, than using the linear approximation for sexp for arbitrary bases leads to the estimate for bases>=e and the region from k-1..k has an exponential approximation of . For z>k the approximation switches over to a double exponent. This exponential approximation assumes the linear region includes sexp(0), which is true if base>=e. This approximation gives sexp(0)=1, and sexp(1)=b, which are both exact. Then you you could conjecture that for large enough bases (empirically, b>9), the actual sexp(k)>e. Also, I would conjecture that for b>9 the approximation is less than actual sexp(z) until z=1, where by definition the approximation is exactly correct once again. Anyway, such an slog(e) approximation for large bases goes to zero, but very slowly. For b=googleplex=, the approximation is slog(e)=0.0043. For b=10, the approximation is 0.545 and the correct . For b=100, the approximation is 0.396 and the correct value is . For b=100000, the approximation is 0.290, and the correct value is . Here is a graph of sexp_100000(z). The function is surprisingly well behaved in the region of interest. Here, , and the linear approximation region would be from -1.71 to -0.71. The actual sexp is in red, and the linear approximation is in green. - Sheldon « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Messages In This Thread Growth of superexponential - by Balarka Sen - 02/26/2013, 11:19 AM RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 02/26/2013, 10:00 PM RE: Growth of superexponential - by Balarka Sen - 02/27/2013, 02:19 PM RE: Growth of superexponential - by sheldonison - 02/27/2013, 06:40 PM RE: Growth of superexponential - by Balarka Sen - 02/27/2013, 07:24 PM RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 03/01/2013, 12:11 AM RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 03/06/2013, 11:51 PM RE: Growth of superexponential - by tommy1729 - 03/06/2013, 11:55 PM

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Between exp^[h] and elementary growth tommy1729 0 1,181 09/04/2017, 11:12 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Growth rate of the recurrence x(n+1) = x(n) + (arcsinh( x/2 ))^[1/2] ( x(n) )? tommy1729 0 1,838 04/29/2013, 11:29 PM Last Post: tommy1729 General question on function growth dyitto 2 3,965 03/08/2011, 04:41 PM Last Post: dyitto Nowhere analytic superexponential convergence sheldonison 14 18,090 02/10/2011, 07:22 AM Last Post: sheldonison The upper superexponential bo198214 18 21,244 09/18/2009, 04:01 PM Last Post: Gottfried Question about speed of growth Ivars 4 6,101 05/30/2008, 06:12 AM Last Post: Ivars Hilberdink: Uniqueness by order of growth? bo198214 2 3,732 05/30/2008, 12:29 AM Last Post: andydude superexponential below -2 bo198214 10 9,795 05/27/2008, 01:09 PM Last Post: GFR

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) 