Tetration Forum

Full Version: The balanced hyperop sequence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Till now we always discussed right-bracketed tetration, i.e. with the mother law:
a[n+1](b+1)=a[n](a[n+1]b)

here however I will introduce that balanced mother law:

a[n+1](2b) = (a[n+1]b) [n] (a[n+1]b)

a major difference to the right-bracketing hyperopsequence is that we can only derive values of the form 2^n for the right operand. Though this looks like a disadvantage, it has the major advantage being able to uniquely (or at least canonicly) being extended to the real/complex numbers.

First indeed we notice, that if we set a[1]b=a+b and if we set the starting condition a[n+1]1=a then the first three operations are indeed again addition multiplication and exponentiation:

by induction



But now the major advantage, the extension to the real numbers. We can easily see that

for

for example , , . There and so , and .

Now the good thing about each is that it has the fixed point 1 () and we can do regular iteration there. For k>2, it seems .

Back to the operation we have
or in other words we define

.
I didnt explicate it yet, but this yields quite sure and also on the positive reals.

I will see to provide some graphs of x[4]y in the future.
The increase rate of balanced tetration should be between the one left-bracketed tetration and right-bracketed/normal tetration.

I also didnt think about zeration in the context of the balanced mother law. We have (a+1)[0](a+1)=a+2 which changes to a[0]a=a+1 by substituting a+1=a. However this seems to contradict (a+2)[0](a+2)=a+4. So maybe there is no zeration here.
bo198214 Wrote:I also didnt think about zeration in the context of the balanced mother law. We have (a+1)[0](a+1)=a+2 which changes to a[0]a=a+1 by substituting a+1=a. However this seems to contradict (a+2)[0](a+2)=a+4. So maybe there is no zeration here.

Yes, I completely agree with you. But I would prove it differently, as I did in an email to you awhile back.

as you mentioned, so
because it is the identity function, but
by definition of addition!
therefore, cannot exist.

Andrew Robbins
andydude Wrote: as you mentioned, so
because it is the identity function, but
by definition of addition!
therefore, cannot exist.

This is a nice proof, thanks.

Quote:... prove it differently, as I did in an email to you awhile back.

An e-mail to me? I dont remember, did I reply?
If we instead of using the formula in tetration use the formula , starting with , we get the balanced tetration fractal. It is *much* simpler than the tetration fractal resembling the easy handling of the extension of this kind of tetration.
Here some pictures
[attachment=314]

[attachment=315]

[attachment=316]

[attachment=317]
The basic structure is similar to that of the tetration fractal, see
here, however it lacks its complexity. So it looks rather stupid Wink
bo198214 Wrote:An e-mail to me? I dont remember, did I reply?

No you didn't. Perhaps it never got through.
The iterational formula for parabolic iteration (like for ) is quite simple, the principal Abel function is:

for an attracting fixed point at 0 and an arbitrary starting point in the attracting domain of the fixed point.
The formula remains still valid for an arbitrary attracting fixed point. The regular iteration is then

.
I am not completely sure about the convergence but this should be equivalent (if we substitute with its approximations) to


In our case however the fixed point at 1 is repelling, so we take advantage of having an attracting fixed point together with :



here and .

However the convergence is so fucking slow, already for the Abel function of that I am not able to post a graph yet!

andydude Wrote:No you didn't. Perhaps it never got through.

Please resend it, have also a look at your private messages.
Oh guys, long time its ago since this thread was started.
But now I am finally able to post the premiere graph of balanced selftetration, i.e. x[4]x where [4] is the balanced tetration.
This was possible by a mixture of recurrent and power series formula.
And this is the result:
[attachment=658]

blue: x[2]x = x*x = x^2
green: x[3]x = x^x
red: x[4]x

Note that 2[n]2 = 4 in balanced hyperoperations of arbitrary rank n.

and here with aspect ratio 1 and the identity in black as comparison, including 0:
[attachment=659]