Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cyclic complex functions and uniqueness
#11
I dont know what you mean, Gottfried, the definition


uniquely defines for any natural . This definition is equivalent to if you substitute in the second line
.
So the finite iterations are equal and hence also the limit for !?

But lets continue this discussion of Dmitrii's article in the other thread. As this thread is about cyclic complex functions.
Reply
#12
bo198214 Wrote:I dont know what you mean, Gottfried, the definition


uniquely defines for any natural . This definition is equivalent to if you substitute in the second line
.
So the finite iterations are equal and hence also the limit for !?

But lets continue this discussion of Dmitrii's article in the other thread. As this thread is about cyclic complex functions.
Hmm, Henryk -

I don't know how to say more than in the previous msg.

In

lim n->oo

we have



and we have to evaluate the limit to evaluate the limit...
Perhaps another view makes my problem better visible. Look at D.F.Barrow's (*1) illustration

   

This images suggests a sequence of parameters, indexed from 0 to n, but which we had to evaluate beginning at n instead of 0 according to right associativity of the operation. However, the convention of partial evaluation to the approximate result would be a0, a0^a1, a0^a1^a2,...

Again hmm, I cannot say more. If it isn't sufficient to explain my concern, then I'm rather helpless, and am apparently facing another mystery of math from outside (of the game)...

Gottfried
(*1) D.F.Barrow; Infinite Exponentials;
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 43, no. 3 (Mar., 1936), 150-160

(Sorry, I still appended my reply still in this thread - seemed a bit strange to change the place. You may reorder as you think it is appropriate)
Gottfried Helms, Kassel
Reply
#13
Gottfried, if the definitions agree on finite arguments then they also agree in the limit, this is a triviality. Everything else is a matter of taste.

If we define


then of course also

and vice versa.
If you want, you can prove that by induction.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Complex Tetration, to base exp(1/e) Ember Edison 7 871 08/14/2019, 09:15 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  The AB functions ! tommy1729 0 1,333 04/04/2017, 11:00 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  A conjectured uniqueness criteria for analytic tetration Vladimir Reshetnikov 13 9,745 02/17/2017, 05:21 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  An explicit series for the tetration of a complex height Vladimir Reshetnikov 13 10,306 01/14/2017, 09:09 PM
Last Post: Vladimir Reshetnikov
  Uniqueness of half-iterate of exp(x) ? tommy1729 14 13,207 01/09/2017, 02:41 AM
Last Post: Gottfried
  the inverse ackerman functions JmsNxn 3 5,422 09/18/2016, 11:02 AM
Last Post: Xorter
  Polygon cyclic fixpoint conjecture tommy1729 1 1,922 05/18/2016, 12:26 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Removing the branch points in the base: a uniqueness condition? fivexthethird 0 1,349 03/19/2016, 10:44 AM
Last Post: fivexthethird
  Look-alike functions. tommy1729 1 1,786 03/08/2016, 07:10 PM
Last Post: hixidom
  Inverse power tower functions tommy1729 0 1,676 01/04/2016, 12:03 PM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)