Posts: 1,703
Threads: 374
Joined: Feb 2009
Is there an entire function known that is close to sexp(z) near the positive real line ?
Such a function must exist.
Never read about it though.
Apart from interpolation I do not know in what way this should be constructed.
regards
tommy1729
Posts: 1,703
Threads: 374
Joined: Feb 2009
This smells like an integral transform. And a proof with contour integration.
Exactly how is another thing.
Maybe something for James Nixon ? (user JmsNxn's name I assume)
regards
tommy1729
Posts: 985
Threads: 117
Joined: Dec 2010
04/29/2014, 05:47 PM
(This post was last modified: 04/29/2014, 08:15 PM by JmsNxn.)
I got a function that is very close to tetration:
Let us take the function:
Then is exponential order zero.
If for
Then
Which IS TETRATION and satisfies the recursion. However, I haven't been able to prove absolute convergence of that integral.
BUT! We can take:
for and for small hopefully not too small to blow up.
Furthermore this can be made even better for
These functions are so close to tetration it makes me want to punch a hole in the wall that I can' prove absolute convergence. _ lol. It's Real to real and interpolates tetration too. The limit as is tetration in both cases if it converges. but both functions are not the same .
Posts: 1,703
Threads: 374
Joined: Feb 2009
Im a bit puzzled by the " s ".
e^[3] = e^(e^e)
But e^[3] = ln(ln(ln(1))) = ln(ln(0)) = ??
So I do not know what the "s" means.
However your last formula seems to end that problem so it seems
Is the kind of formula we look for.
However, Im more concerned about wheither or not this is analytic !?
Convergeance is an intresting subject, but if it is analytic somewhere then by analytic continuation we can extend it.
But why should that be analytic ? Assuming it is analytic then its derivative must equal the term by term derivative. Can you show it  the term by term derivative formulation  converges ?
Actually I bet that this function is not analytic and I even bet sheldon agrees with me.
Intresting though. But I suspect you have mentioned this function before, not ?
regards
tommy1729
Posts: 985
Threads: 117
Joined: Dec 2010
04/29/2014, 11:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 04/29/2014, 11:22 PM by JmsNxn.)
(04/29/2014, 09:25 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Im a bit puzzled by the " s ".
e^[3] = e^(e^e)
But e^[3] = ln(ln(ln(1))) = ln(ln(0)) = ??
So I do not know what the "s" means.
However your last formula seems to end that problem so it seems
Is the kind of formula we look for.
However, Im more concerned about wheither or not this is analytic !?
Convergeance is an intresting subject, but if it is analytic somewhere then by analytic continuation we can extend it.
But why should that be analytic ? Assuming it is analytic then its derivative must equal the term by term derivative. Can you show it  the term by term derivative formulation  converges ?
Actually I bet that this function is not analytic and I even bet sheldon agrees with me.
Intresting though. But I suspect you have mentioned this function before, not ?
regards
tommy1729
very easy to see this is analytic. No idea what you're talking about. lol. Mellin transform of an entire function is analytic. Multiply it by the inverse gamma which is entire and voila, analytic and entire.
I'd explain why but it's literally an excercise in analysis 101. These are all uniform limits of analytic functions, so it's neessarily analytic.
Posts: 684
Threads: 24
Joined: Oct 2008
04/30/2014, 10:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 04/30/2014, 11:04 AM by sheldonison.)
(04/26/2014, 12:23 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Is there an entire function known that is close to sexp(z) near the positive real line ?
Such a function must exist.
Never read about it though.
Apart from interpolation I do not know in what way this should be constructed.
regards
tommy1729 Tommy,
There are many examples of entire superexponentials, such as iterating
f(z)=b^z, where b=exp(1/e), jaydfox calls this "cheta(z)", fixpoint=e
f(z)=exp(z)1, this turns out to be cheta(z)/e1, fixpoint=0
f(z)=2sinh(z), fixpoint=0
f(z)=sinh(z), fixpoint=0
f(z)=b^z, from the upper fixed point for bases less than 1<b<exp(1/e)
All of them grow superexponentially at the real axis, and they are entire, but they don't behave like sexp(z) near z=0.
 Sheldon
Posts: 1,703
Threads: 374
Joined: Feb 2009
(04/29/2014, 11:21 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: (04/29/2014, 09:25 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Im a bit puzzled by the " s ".
e^[3] = e^(e^e)
But e^[3] = ln(ln(ln(1))) = ln(ln(0)) = ??
So I do not know what the "s" means.
However your last formula seems to end that problem so it seems
Is the kind of formula we look for.
However, Im more concerned about wheither or not this is analytic !?
Convergeance is an intresting subject, but if it is analytic somewhere then by analytic continuation we can extend it.
But why should that be analytic ? Assuming it is analytic then its derivative must equal the term by term derivative. Can you show it  the term by term derivative formulation  converges ?
Actually I bet that this function is not analytic and I even bet sheldon agrees with me.
Intresting though. But I suspect you have mentioned this function before, not ?
regards
tommy1729
very easy to see this is analytic. No idea what you're talking about. lol. Mellin transform of an entire function is analytic. Multiply it by the inverse gamma which is entire and voila, analytic and entire.
I'd explain why but it's literally an excercise in analysis 101. These are all uniform limits of analytic functions, so it's neessarily analytic.
Your right, sorry.
So it is analytic.
To be entire it needs to be analytic everywhere , what requires that it converges everywhere.
regards
tommy1729
Posts: 1,703
Threads: 374
Joined: Feb 2009
(04/30/2014, 10:56 AM)sheldonison Wrote: (04/26/2014, 12:23 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Is there an entire function known that is close to sexp(z) near the positive real line ?
Such a function must exist.
Never read about it though.
Apart from interpolation I do not know in what way this should be constructed.
regards
tommy1729 Tommy,
There are many examples of entire superexponentials, such as iterating
f(z)=b^z, where b=exp(1/e), jaydfox calls this "cheta(z)", fixpoint=e
f(z)=exp(z)1, this turns out to be cheta(z)/e1, fixpoint=0
f(z)=2sinh(z), fixpoint=0
f(z)=sinh(z), fixpoint=0
f(z)=b^z, from the upper fixed point for bases less than 1<b<exp(1/e)
All of them grow superexponentially at the real axis, and they are entire, but they don't behave like sexp(z) near z=0.
 Sheldon
Right. Sorry I should have remembered.
Posts: 985
Threads: 117
Joined: Dec 2010
(04/30/2014, 12:23 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Your right, sorry.
So it is analytic.
To be entire it needs to be analytic everywhere , what requires that it converges everywhere.
regards
tommy1729 It is entire. It converges everywhere. Should've said that.
