# Tetration Forum

Full Version: derive of sexp_x(x)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Hi
few months ago ,I wrote a paper on "derive of sexp_x(x) and others" although this derive does not exist until now but I still not sure of publishing my paper because I am amateur mathematican just studying tetration as a hoppy and I have many things I am not clear about ,so I need your help , should I submit it to a publisher magazine or upload it here first to discuss it with you for evaluating.

Nasser Dawood
Where is the paper ?

Also if you are not a mathematician how are you going to publish ?

regards

tommy1729
(04/29/2013, 10:28 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: [ -> ]Where is the paper ?

Also if you are not a mathematician how are you going to publish ?
Hi tommy1729

Here is the paper

in the attachment

derive of sexp_x(x)
rar password = tetra
some magazines does not provide mathematician publishers, they just evaluate the content of the paper or research.

Does everyone agree on equation 31 ?

In particular the * ln(b)^x * part ?

I do not know what " lin " is suppose to mean.

Those are my biggest concerns together with the possibility that there has already been a post proving the same thing.

Maybe the *ln(b)^x* is only true for some solutions to tetration , suggesting that this assumes such a solution. But I may be wrong.

Taking things ' x times ' is controversial.

regards

tommy1729
Its just that using the chain rule for differentiation , I seem to get ln(b)^floor(x) or did I make a mistake there ?

regards

tommy1729
You can download the last updated paper from the following link

http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0040
(Please replace the attachment with the updated one.)

On equation No. 31, it is the same derive result in the floowing reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MathFa...on_Summary

check "Differentiation rules" part in the above link.

they are almost the same including the part * ln(b)^x *.

but the deffrence is in a concluded result in the paper,see page No. 11.

my problem is that to ensure that "x times" is correct for any real number, although we already know that it is correct for all integers.

regards

Nasser