Superroots and a generalization for the Lambert-W - Printable Version +- Tetration Forum ( https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum)+-- Forum: Tetration and Related Topics ( https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)+--- Forum: Mathematical and General Discussion ( https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)+--- Thread: Superroots and a generalization for the Lambert-W ( /showthread.php?tid=1033) |

RE: Superroots and a generalization for the Lambert-W - tommy1729 - 12/02/2015
(12/02/2015, 03:49 AM)Gottfried Wrote:(12/01/2015, 11:58 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: The thing is solving (x_m ^ x_m)^[m] = y is only close to solvingTrue. But having this way a (non-trivial) vector of different exponents (or better: bases) which comes out to be a meaningful "nested exponentiation" I'm curious, whether one can do something with it, for instance weighting, averaging, or multisecting that sequence of exponents/bases when re-combining them to a "nested exponential". We have not yet many examples of "nested exponentiations" with a meaningful outcome. This reminds me of one of my posts on the OEIS many years ago , also under the pseudo tommy1729 ( i have other pseudo too ). Go to Oeis and enter tommy1729. Or use this link: https://oeis.org/search?q=Tommy1729&language=english&go=Search In particular https://oeis.org/A102575 In abuse notation this becomes (1 + 1/n)^^ And it was a special case of my investigations in the Tommy-Zeta functions between 2001 and 2009 given by (1+1^(-s))^(1+2^(-s)) ... This is somewhat similar and thus might intrest you. Regards Tommy1729 RE: Superroots and a generalization for the Lambert-W - andydude - 12/09/2015
I think super-roots are important. Iterated exponentials () are a function of three variables (trivariate? function), and so they have 3 inverse functions: negatively iterated exponentials (solving for z), trivariate super-logarithms (solving for y), and trivariate super-roots (solving for x). Trivariate super-logarithms can be expressed with bivariate super-logarithms, and so are not fundamental operations, but trivariate super-roots have no known expression in terms of bivariate super-roots, and so are, so far, a fundamental operation so far as I know. My recent research into super-roots have convinced me that we know more about them than we think we know. We can calculate the derivatives of them to a rational number in some cases, and to any precision in other cases. Using a combination of power series and Lagrange inverse series, we can calculate many many things about them, but we still don't have a closed form for these apparently useful functions. I think that given enough time, effort, and insight, we can find at least a recurrence equation that expresses how to find super-root (n + 1) given complete knowledge of super-root (n). I'm going to go out on a limb and make a notation for these trivariate super-roots: - iff.
If we could find a general way of expressing trivariate super-roots in terms of bivariate super-roots, then I think we would know much more about tetration than we do today. Perhaps along the way we will discover something new that will shed some light on super-logarithms, too, perhaps. Regards, Andrew Robbins RE: Superroots and a generalization for the Lambert-W - andydude - 12/30/2015
I believe I may have found a closed form for the power series of the third tetrate function as well. I'm not sure if these are known, but I just used the elementary properties of binomials and Stirling numbers to derive these: The first one (logarithmic power series) reminds me of something in one of Galidakis' papers about tetration, but I don't remember which paper. The second one is derived from the fact that the generating function of the signed Stirling numbers the first kind is . |