• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 Hooshmand's extension of tetration andydude Long Time Fellow Posts: 509 Threads: 44 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 09:32 AM Quote:M.H. Hooshmand, August 2006, "Ultra power and ultra exponential functions", Integral Transforms and Special Functions, Vol. 17, No. 8, 549-558. I recently found this reference in Wikipedia's Tetration article (which I moved to the talk page until it is clearly explained), but the full description of this extension was mainly contained in this article, both of which give the same reference. What bothers me is that these two pages describe this extension differently, and many of the uniqueness conditions are contradictory! Has anyone read this reference, and if so, then could they explain it in more detail? I would really like to know more about this extension, but unfortunately the Wikipedia article is lacking in clarity and completeness. Andrew Robbins GFR Member Posts: 174 Threads: 4 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 12:21 PM Very important! Is this method in connection with the implementation of a "continuous iteration" of the exp operator. Am I wrong? The Wikipedia article is not clear at-all. Nevertheless, I presume that his ultra-exponential and ultra-logarithm must exactly be what we call tetration and slog. We need to get the original article, asap! GFR andydude Long Time Fellow Posts: 509 Threads: 44 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 01:05 PM First, it seems as if the article is in a refereed journal, and I don't know what that means. Second, the more I read about "uxp" in and of itself, the more I am sure it is just "linear" tetration (or what some other people call the "fractional part" extension of tetration). This is by no means new. If anything, the paper seems to focus on uniqueness theorems, so there might be something to be gained after all. Andrew Robbins bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,389 Threads: 90 Joined: Aug 2007 01/19/2008, 01:25 PM andydude Wrote:If anything, the paper seems to focus on uniqueness theorems, so there might be something to be gained after all. Hopefully it does not unveil as a condition that just favours the linear tetration. However thanks to our gold-digger Andydude! andydude Long Time Fellow Posts: 509 Threads: 44 Joined: Aug 2007 01/20/2008, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 01/20/2008, 08:03 AM by andydude.) I feel like I have come to a resolution to this issue on my part. The way that I interpreted the definition given in Wikipedia's UXP article is that there are 2 errors, which I will cover here. The fourth condition requires that between (-1) and 0, UXP' is a: "nondecreasing or nonincreasing" function, but this should read "nondecreasing and nonincreasing", which means UXP' is a constant, which means UXP is a linear function. The closed form given in the article defines UXP as: $\text{uxp}_a(x) = \exp_a^{[x+1]}(\ (x)\ )$, but this should read $\text{uxp}_a(x) = (\exp_a)^{\text{int}(x+1)}(\text{frac}(x+1))$, because of how "frac" is implemented on some CASs, and because this is much more clear than how it is described. I hope the actual reference is better than this... Andrew Robbins GFR Member Posts: 174 Threads: 4 Joined: Aug 2007 01/20/2008, 11:46 AM Oh ... my God ! Let me ... sleep about that. GFR Danesh Junior Fellow Posts: 3 Threads: 0 Joined: Jul 2008 07/29/2008, 08:38 AM (This post was last modified: 07/30/2008, 05:44 AM by Danesh.) Dear friend, you are wrong. If you look at the original paper (the main uniqueness theorem), then you find that the condition "nondecreasing or nonincreasing" is correct and is clearly different to the hypothesis " UXP' is a constant". andydude Wrote:I feel like I have come to a resolution to this issue on my part. The way that I interpreted the definition given in Wikipedia's UXP article is that there are 2 errors, which I will cover here. The fourth condition requires that between (-1) and 0, UXP' is a: "nondecreasing or nonincreasing" function, but this should read "nondecreasing and nonincreasing", which means UXP' is a constant, which means UXP is a linear function. The closed form given in the article defines UXP as: $\text{uxp}_a(x) = \exp_a^{[x+1]}(\ (x)\ )$, but this should read $\text{uxp}_a(x) = (\exp_a)^{\text{int}(x+1)}(\text{frac}(x+1))$, because of how "frac" is implemented on some CASs, and because this is much more clear than how it is described. I hope the actual reference is better than this... Andrew Robbins bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,389 Threads: 90 Joined: Aug 2007 07/29/2008, 11:51 AM Hey Danesh, welcome at the forum. Did you investigate Hooshmand's extension to some extent? I wonder whether you clarify some more about it. I didnt read the original article, but think its not an analytic extension, rather several times differentiable, is that true? I also wonder how you found this forum and what your interests are. Danesh Junior Fellow Posts: 3 Threads: 0 Joined: Jul 2008 07/30/2008, 05:00 AM (This post was last modified: 07/30/2008, 05:18 AM by Danesh.) Hi. Yes, it isn't analytic extension, but is unique extension. In fact the "ultra power" and "ultra exponential function" are gotten as the next step of the serial binary operations: addition, multiplication and power. I think you enjoy it if you get and read the original paper. You can see its abstract in the following site: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content...order=page I found this forum just by the google , while I was searching about the ultra exponential function, ultra power, tetration, etc. Danesh Junior Fellow Posts: 3 Threads: 0 Joined: Jul 2008 08/14/2008, 04:48 AM Dear friends, A new paper, related to ultra power and ultra exponential function (Hooshmand's extension of tetration), has been published in the journal Integral Transforms and Special Functions. In it, another new function "Ultra power part function" and the dual of Uxp namely "Infra logarithm function (Iog)" ,that for a>1 is its inverse, have been introduced. You can see its abstract in http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content...type=alert M.H. Hooshmand, August 2008, "Infra logarithm and ultra power part functions", Integral Transforms and Special Functions, Vol. 19, No. 7, 497-507. « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Possible continuous extension of tetration to the reals Dasedes 0 1,500 10/10/2016, 04:57 AM Last Post: Dasedes Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension bo198214 32 46,489 08/22/2016, 04:19 PM Last Post: Gottfried Non-trivial extension of max(n,1)-1 to the reals and its iteration. MphLee 3 4,196 05/17/2014, 07:10 PM Last Post: MphLee extension of the Ackermann function to operators less than addition JmsNxn 2 4,372 11/06/2011, 08:06 PM Last Post: JmsNxn Tetration Extension to Real Heights chobe 3 6,555 05/15/2010, 01:39 AM Last Post: bo198214 Tetration extension for bases between 1 and eta dantheman163 16 20,510 12/19/2009, 10:55 AM Last Post: bo198214 Extension of tetration to other branches mike3 15 22,420 10/28/2009, 07:42 AM Last Post: bo198214 Dmitrii Kouznetsov's Tetration Extension andydude 38 40,749 11/20/2008, 01:31 AM Last Post: Kouznetsov

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)