Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
simple equation for R -> R
there is a simple equation to find a real to real tetration.

( [0,oo] to [0,oo] , no negative reals of course )

it works for all solutions.

lets call the solution 'kneser'.

and set kneser(0) = 0 , sexp(0) = 0.

real(z) = x

im(kneser(z)) = 0

sexp(x) = kneser(z)

thats it !

however finding the solution is something else.

i assume that by riemann mapping theorem that 'this sexp' is coo if ' this kneser ' is.

finding the parametric real and im part of ' kneser ' might be as complicated or even equivalent to riemann mapping.

and i assume the coo prop of the parametric real and im part is equivalent to the coo prop of ' kneser ' or ' sexp '.

looking at it this way , its trivial to see that riemann mapping , fourier series and the 'wave' are strongly related , not to say equivalent.

the question is if the equations

set kneser(0) = 0 , sexp(0) = 0.

real(z) = x

im(kneser(z)) = 0

sexp(x) = kneser(z)

lead to new insights or alternative methods.

i propose that the curve of the 'knesers' ( the parametric wave of the real outputs of all known non R->R solutions ) get a special function name or special command name ( for general iterations ).

( command could be 'knesercurve(f(x))' and in the general case its very likely that the curve cannot be computed if the superfunction cant , but who knows ! )

i wanted to note that the 'wave' does have some limitations and does not have total freedom as sometimes believed :

it must be an analytic wave and it must be a bounded wave that converges on C ( luckily for four series ! and thus not double periodic or finite radius )

but thats not all.

since we have a smooth curve the equations presented might be solvable without riemann mapping !

since we have a smooth curve we might use newton iteration.

im convinced that an iterative system exists to solve such a problem that is hardly more complicated than computing a schroeder function.

that is however a numerical method not suited for closed form ( unless the algoritm itself ( limit ) but prob no sum or integral ) or properties or proofs , unless by the squeezing theorem and comparing different tetration solutions...

i guess we are pretty close to reunderstanding knesers solution and being able to compute it ( rather than just the non-constructive existance ).

i know im not the only one doing research on it ( e.g. sheldonison ) , but i didnt want this to be left behind.

and maybe i helped some people who didnt understand kneser or sheldon and do understand now.

but im not finished...

about that wave again

because of kneser(z+1) = exp(kneser(z))

it is clear that the kneser curve has period 1.

kneser(0) = 0 and kneser(1) = 1.

if we draw a straith line trough them , then i assume the curve must be above or below the line and never cross it.

is that true ?



Messages In This Thread
simple equation for R -> R - by tommy1729 - 08/11/2010, 04:10 PM
RE: simple equation for R -> R - by tommy1729 - 08/11/2010, 07:03 PM
RE: simple equation for R -> R - by sheldonison - 08/13/2010, 12:28 AM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Big Grin Logical tetration equation Xorter 0 1,525 02/01/2018, 10:29 PM
Last Post: Xorter
  tommy's simple solution ln^[n](2sinh^[n+x](z)) tommy1729 1 2,816 01/17/2017, 07:21 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Some sort equation ... tommy1729 0 1,736 10/15/2015, 12:12 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  An intresting equation ? Taking squares by equation. tommy1729 0 1,812 05/08/2015, 11:37 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Conservation of functional equation ? tommy1729 0 1,846 05/01/2015, 10:03 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Is this THE equation for parabolic fix ? tommy1729 5 6,685 04/16/2015, 10:01 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Mick's differential equation tommy1729 3 3,619 04/10/2015, 04:14 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tommy equation tommy1729 3 4,325 03/18/2015, 08:52 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  [2014] Inconsistant equation ? tommy1729 0 1,956 07/27/2014, 02:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Differential equation for exp^[0.5] tommy1729 1 3,073 07/26/2014, 12:27 PM
Last Post: tommy1729

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)