• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
  tommy's lost notebook (Chapter II) tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 1,370 Threads: 335 Joined: Feb 2009 06/06/2014, 12:29 PM (This post was last modified: 06/06/2014, 01:16 PM by tommy1729.) As mentioned before my 2sinh method comes from my lost notebook. Most of the notebook was number theory but there were also things about tetration. I recall a big part of the notebook. So its time to post yet another C^oo solution to tetration. Due to lack of time and the huge amount of pages I cannot post all right now in a single post. There are 2 ways to compute the tetration (method) and they are equivalent. Method 1 assumes analyticity and analytic continuation. (it uses Taylor series) Method 2 depends strongly on convergeance assumptions. The method is basicly a way to solve the equation f ' (x) = Continuum product f(x) Or f ' (x) ~ f(x) f(x-1) f(x-2) ... if you like. It then follows f(x) should be tetration (base e) or at least close to it. I will focus on method 2 here. It is based on a real sequence a_n. a_0 a_1 ... Forgive any typos. *** Method 2 k is a postive integer. The larger k , the better the approximation. So lim k -> +oo is the solution. Let sexp(1) = sexp ' (1) = 1 Let a_(n+m) > a_n (a_n is strictly increasing). g(k) ~ k a_0 = 1 a_1 = 1 +1/g(k) a_2 a_3 ... a_k = exp(a_0) = e a_(k+1) = exp(a_1) = exp(1+1/g(k)) k(a_(k+1)-a_k) = a_1 a_k k(a_(km + q) - a_(km + q -1)) = a_(km + q - 1)[k(a_(k(m-1) + q) - a_(k(m-1) + q -1))] where n = km + q and q = n mod k then sexp(1+x) = lim a_(x/k) to be continued ... regards tommy1729 tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 1,370 Threads: 335 Joined: Feb 2009 06/06/2014, 08:09 PM As for method 1 : d sexp(x) dx = Continuum Product sexp(x). (CP is short for Continuum product, CS is short for Continuum sum) Remember from post 1 : sexp(1) = sexp ' (1) = 1. So we have a parabolic fixpoint at 1. The reason for this choice will become Obvious ... for x > 1 sexp ' (x) dx / f ' (1) = CP^x_1 (sexp(t)) dt This must be the case because sexp '(1) / 1 = the empty product = 1. Otherwise we get a paradox near x = 1 : The LHS must = the RHS. Now take ln on both sides : ln(sexp ' (x)) = CS^x_1 (ln(sexp(t))) dt This reduces to ln(sexp ' (x)) = CS^x_0 (ln(sexp(t))) dt - CS^1_0 (ln(sexp(t))) dt Let the CONSTANT C = CS^1_0 (ln(sexp(t))) dt Then we get : ln(sexp ' (x)) = CS^x_0 (ln(sexp(t))) dt - C Now take the derivative on both sides : sexp '' (x) / sexp ' (x) = [ CS^x_0 (ln(sexp(t))) dt ] ' SO we need to solve for f(x) : f '' (x) / f ' (x) = [ CS^x_0 ( ln(f(t)) ) dt ] ' Write g(x) = f(ln(x)) then we get : [D^2 g(exp(x))] / [D g(exp(x))] = D [ CS^x_0 ( ln(g(exp(t))) ) dt ] The reason i work with this exp and ln here is to have a simple way of taking both the derivative and the continuum sum of a series expansion. More specifically we use Mike3 's method for the continuum sum. The coefficients can then be solved for but we need analytic continuation. Once the equation is solved we can regain our sexp by remembering the C constant. This method assumes a nonzero radius. Also it is assumed that any analytic V(x) that satisfies V ' (x) = V(x) * V(x-1) * V(x-2) * ... Or any analytic W(x) that satisfies W ' (x) = W(x) * ln(W(x)) * ln(ln(W(x))) * ... must be tetration base e. Another way to solve the equation [D^2 g(exp(x))] / [D g(exp(x))] = D [ CS^x_0 ( ln(g(exp(t))) ) dt ] Is by using the discrete analogue ... ... and that is method 2 from post 1. Looks promising. regards tommy1729 tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 1,370 Threads: 335 Joined: Feb 2009 06/07/2014, 11:38 AM About method 2 from post 1. There is a difference between f(x) f(x-id(1)) f(x - id(2)) ... f(x - id(q)) Where q satisfies q is a positive integer such that x - i(q) >= 0 AND the continuum product. example : 2^17.5 - 1 equals the continuum product of 2^n from 0 to 16.5. 2^17.5 - 1 =/= 2^16.5 + 2^15.5 + 2^14.5 + ... 2^0.5. If f(z) is real-analytic for Re(z) > -1 then the ratio between the continuum product (CP) and the product f(x) f(x-id(1)) f(x - id(2)) ... f(x - id(q)) remains bounded on the real line ... " usually". Therefore method 2 is conjectured to give a result that is O ( sexp(x)^(1+o(1)) ) * O(C^x) if the parameter k goes to +oo. Method 1 however is exact , but it might have a natural boundary , in which case the functional equation sexp(z+1) = exp(sexp(z)) starts too loose meaning. Hope that was insightfull. regards tommy1729 « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post tommy's simple solution ln^[n](2sinh^[n+x](z)) tommy1729 1 2,578 01/17/2017, 07:21 AM Last Post: sheldonison Tommy's matrix method for superlogarithm. tommy1729 0 1,728 05/07/2016, 12:28 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Dangerous limits ... Tommy's limit paradox tommy1729 0 1,934 11/27/2015, 12:36 AM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy's Gamma trick ? tommy1729 7 6,391 11/07/2015, 01:02 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy triangles tommy1729 1 2,106 11/04/2015, 01:17 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy-Gottfried divisions. tommy1729 0 1,689 10/09/2015, 07:39 AM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy's hyperlog tommy1729 0 1,757 06/11/2015, 08:23 AM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy-Mandelbrot function tommy1729 0 2,019 04/21/2015, 01:02 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy equation tommy1729 3 4,038 03/18/2015, 08:52 AM Last Post: sheldonison Kouznetsov-Tommy-Cauchy method tommy1729 0 2,074 02/18/2015, 07:05 PM Last Post: tommy1729

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) 