Tetration Forum
Pseudoalgebra - 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: Pseudoalgebra (/showthread.php?tid=1098)

Pseudoalgebra - tommy1729 - 10/05/2016

Consider iterations of exponentials of a fixed height. Also called growth.

For instance semi-exponentials.

In algebra the main thing is Sum and product.

When we consider asymptotics i call it pseudoalgebra.

So for semiexp we get the natural questions such as
The best fit ( given by the symbol = )

Where y is the value we seek and x > 1.

This is - for clarity - an asymptotic equation for bases ( 2,3,5,y).

It reminds me of base change and others.

How about these ?

How to find such identities ?



RE: Pseudoalgebra - tommy1729 - 10/08/2016

@ means approximation.


From there we get

Where d is

( notice this can be rewritten with 1 semi-exp and 2 semi-logs too )

But this is not the full story ofcourse.

We need proofs.

Perhaps consider other ways to handle the issue.

And a qualitative understanding of the formula for d such as d ~ (qs)^2 or the alike.

I wonder if you would have done it differently ?

Also a table would be nice.

Still alot of work to do.


The master

RE: Pseudoalgebra - tommy1729 - 10/13/2016

Im afraid the strategy fails.

For exp_b^[a] <*> and a < 1 we get

<*> @ = exp^[a] ( T x )

Where T Goes to 1 as x grows and for a >= 1 , T Goes to ln(b).

Proof sketch

S commutes with exp.

S(T x) = ln S ( T b^x) / ln(B).

= S ln ( T b^x) / ln(B)

= S ( ln T + ln B x ) / ln B


Still thinking ...



RE: Pseudoalgebra - tommy1729 - 10/19/2016

So originally i tried to work from " the inside " like but from " the outside " like we got already the following result.

( i Will omit x sometimes , since it Goes to oo )


Now z > 1 must be true.


Since z > 1 and we get




Notice for integer n > 0 we get by the above and induction


I assume it holds for n = 0 , that would imply that powers dominate bases for subexponential tetration.

In other words

Conjecture for p > 1 :


However we need much better understanding and approximations.

We are not close to answering

semiexp_q * semiexp_s ~ semiexp_d ^ R

For a given pair (q,s) and a desired best fit (d,R).

I considered the base change but without succes. The approximation slog - slog_b ~~ constant is insufficient.

See also


Although that might be hard to read.



RE: Pseudoalgebra - sheldonison - 10/23/2016

(10/05/2016, 12:21 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: ....
So for semiexp we get the natural questions such as
The best fit ( given by the symbol = )

Mick's question on mathstack exchange is related to this post. In my answer, I considered and . See math.stackexchange.com If one uses the analytic solution for the half iterates of base_2 and the half iterate of base_e (ignoring the conjectured nowhere analytic basechange type solutions), the fractional exponentials are not at all well ordered. If a<b, half the time as x grows super exponentially large.

There are more details in my post, but if g(x)=0, then

Consider the 2nd peak for base2 occurs near 5.668, where the half iterate base_2 is larger than the half iterate base_e.

[Image: halfsize2.gif]

x2=sloge(sexp2(5.668 +0.5))= 5.03973936018302
xe=sloge(sexp2(5.668 ))+0.5 =5.03945210684265

The question is how much larger is x2 than xe? We can take the logarithm twice of both numbers, and compare sexp_e(x2-2) vs sexp_e(xe-2), and they differ by about +418960.3! This very large difference can be compared to the difference in log(log(2^x)) vs log(log(e^x)) which is always log(log(2)) or -0.3665