Tetration Forum

Full Version: Attempt to formally generalize log, exp functions to 3,4,5..(n,m) log exp
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
I think the easiest proof is



which can only be true for a constant function.
(04/14/2011, 11:16 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: [ -> ]I think the easiest proof is



which can only be true for a constant function.

But this would need a bit more explanation *why* constancy follows from that. And then its not that short anymore Wink

Pages: 1 2 3