Thread Rating:
• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration Gottfried Ultimate Fellow Posts: 761 Threads: 118 Joined: Aug 2007 10/16/2013, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 10/16/2013, 01:04 PM by Gottfried.) (10/15/2013, 07:14 PM)sheldonison Wrote: Gottfried, I think your solution is interesting. I see from your paper, that the solution you get is real valued. Presumably, there is some sort of Taylor series representation for your solution. I would be interested in seeing a Taylor series at sexp(0) where sexp(0)=1. The Kneser solution is defined by two basic things; which your solution would need to match to converge. 1) it is real valued (it sounds like your function is also real valued). 2) the sexp limiting behavior in the complex plane, as imag(z) increases, is the same as the Schroeder function solution. At imag(z)=0.75i, it is visually the same, and convergence gets better as imag(z) increases, as defined by a 1- cyclic scaling function that goes to a constant as imag(z) increases. - Sheldon Hi Sheldon - I've still no real answer to your questions. However one more observation might lead me into that direction. Using the 64x64-Carlemanmatrix I got the impression that the profile of the eigenvalues tend to something known: possibly, with the index k they approximate to some u^(k^2), and with the index running from -infinty to +infinity; and this reminds me then much of your introduction of a theta-series into the implementation of the Kneser-solution. The problem that I cannot provide a true implementation of a Schröder-function and of its inverse, and thus no true sexp and slog, should be better characterized in the following way: In the regular tetration we generate a triangular Carleman-matrix, say C. Diagonalizing is exact and more important, constant for arbitrary size of the matrix involved. Then we have C = M * D * W where D contains in its diagonal the consecutive powers of the multiplier u. M and W are automatically of the Carleman-type, thus a proper Schröderfunction s(x) can be built from the coefficients of the second column of M. The inverse of the Schröderfunction, say "si(x)" can be built by the second column of W and the consecutive powers of (s(x)*u) - this is just the implementation of an ordinary power series. With the polynomial-method we do initially the same: we diagonalize the matrix C = M * D * W But now neither M,nor W nor D are of the Carleman type, so we must evaluate each column of M, getting a set of coefficients (not consecutive powers), then D has a set of coefficients which seem to be unrelated with each other, and the same is true with W. So we dont have a schröderfunction and also not its logarithm the slog() and we must evaluate the full matrix-product over all columns of W,D and the second column of W. Perhaps there is some finetuning possible though. To the other question: here is a quick&dirty-version of a powerseries in h, which should give the h'th iterate starting from z0=0: f(h) = 0.938382809828*h - 0.167828379563*h^2 + 0.287374412061*h^3 - 0.151317834929*h^4 + 0.152072891321*h^5 - 0.115906539199*h^6 + 0.104252971656*h^7 - 0.0896484652321*h^8 + 0.0804335682514*h^9 - 0.0722083698851*h^10 + 0.0657781099848*h^11 - 0.0603034448582*h^12 + 0.0557107445178*h^13 - 0.0517589491520*h^14 + 0.0483386436954*h^15 - 0.0453431498049*h^16 + 0.0426994261734*h^17 - 0.0403475539535*h^18 + 0.0382412646892*h^19 - 0.0363431568004*h^20 + 0.0346230698175*h^21 - 0.0330562751755*h^22 + 0.0316223524107*h^23 - 0.0303042715741*h^24 + 0.0290877202845*h^25 - 0.0279605769637*h^26 + 0.0269125034199*h^27 - 0.0259346231153*h^28 + 0.0250192655171*h^29 - 0.0241597604217*h^30 + 0.0233502707006*h^31 - 0.0225856544388*h^32 + 0.0218613494467*h^33 - 0.0211732744878*h^34 + 0.0205177425741*h^35 - 0.0198913824642*h^36 + 0.0192910652121*h^37 - 0.0187138333754*h^38 + 0.0181568314451*h^39 - 0.0176172372736*h^40 + 0.0170921958071*h^41 - 0.0165787582106*h^42 + 0.0160738313658*h^43 - 0.0155741444362*h^44 + 0.0150762403807*h^45 - 0.0145765005325*h^46 + 0.0140712092755*h^47 - 0.0135566632029*h^48 + 0.0130293249244*h^49 - 0.0124860162007*h^50 + 0.0119241389267*h^51 - 0.0113419065535*h^52 + 0.0107385638363*h^53 - 0.0101145703178*h^54 + 0.00947172342934*h^55 - 0.00881320086624*h^56 + 0.00814350875574*h^57 - 0.00746833136793*h^58 + 0.00679428854523*h^59 - 0.00612861721557*h^60 + 0.00547880187039*h^61 - 0.00485218452897*h^62 + 0.00425558671715*h^63 - 0.00369497416472*h^64 + O(h^65) Here the same for start at z0=1: f(h) = 1.00000000000 + 1.30087612467*h + 0.613490605591*h^2 + 0.462613730384*h^3 + 0.258026678269*h^4 + 0.163196550177*h^5 + 0.0896232963846*h^6 + 0.0521088351004*h^7 + 0.0278728768121*h^8 + 0.0153988549222*h^9 + 0.00803787843644*h^10 + 0.00428567564173*h^11 + 0.00218991589639*h^12 + 0.00113674868744*h^13 + 0.000570258372500*h^14 + 0.000289775759114*h^15 + 0.000143052447222*h^16 + 0.0000714303563040*h^17 + 0.0000347673520279*h^18 + 0.0000171062518351*h^19 + 0.00000822180736115*h^20 + 0.00000399449536057*h^21 + 0.00000189817814974*h^22 + 0.000000912157817172*h^23 + 0.000000428985593627*h^24 + 0.000000204179146341*h^25 + 0.0000000951111473740*h^26 + 0.0000000448892717431*h^27 + 0.0000000207246449571*h^28 + 0.00000000970923382052*h^29 + 0.00000000444495348205*h^30 + 0.00000000206897297403*h^31 + 0.000000000939569121455*h^32 + 0.000000000434896014592*h^33 + 1.95950745547 E-10*h^34 + 9.02701746055 E-11*h^35 + 4.03579535562 E-11*h^36 + 1.85202423681 E-11*h^37 + 8.21532589062 E-12*h^38 + 3.75895249924 E-12*h^39 + 1.65398790921 E-12*h^40 + 7.55348988152 E-13*h^41 + 3.29536565950 E-13*h^42 + 1.50386648676 E-13*h^43 + 6.50048867954 E-14*h^44 + 2.96864069036 E-14*h^45 + 1.27005340533 E-14*h^46 + 5.81424087541 E-15*h^47 + 2.45836244673 E-15*h^48 + 1.13062762175 E-15*h^49 + 4.71495264346 E-16*h^50 + 2.18452094165 E-16*h^51 + 8.96002942713 E-17*h^52 + 4.19710010287 E-17*h^53 + 1.68674972326 E-17*h^54 + 8.02580312930 E-18*h^55 + 3.14409639911 E-18*h^56 + 1.52906227353 E-18*h^57 + 5.79803950799 E-19*h^58 + 2.90599482712 E-19*h^59 + 1.05635889369 E-19*h^60 + 5.51749837772 E-20*h^61 + 1.89731889651 E-20*h^62 + 1.04844959488 E-20*h^63 + 3.34780766727 E-21*h^64 + O(h^65) No guarantee that this is correct; I just let Pari/GP expand the symbolic expression of the indicated computation with fixed x= and h indeterminate. Gottfried Gottfried Helms, Kassel « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Messages In This Thread [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/13/2013, 02:20 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by MikeSmith - 10/14/2013, 10:42 AM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/14/2013, 01:19 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by MikeSmith - 10/14/2013, 08:22 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/15/2013, 12:59 AM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by sheldonison - 10/14/2013, 10:07 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/15/2013, 12:00 AM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/15/2013, 01:09 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by sheldonison - 10/15/2013, 07:14 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/15/2013, 11:14 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/16/2013, 12:54 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by sheldonison - 10/16/2013, 04:12 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/16/2013, 05:07 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 10/22/2013, 12:17 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/22/2013, 01:53 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 10/27/2013, 11:40 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by sheldonison - 10/28/2013, 04:17 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 10/28/2013, 11:11 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 10/28/2013, 11:29 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by sheldonison - 10/29/2013, 09:37 AM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 10/28/2013, 11:32 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 10/29/2013, 01:11 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by sheldonison - 10/29/2013, 02:52 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 11/01/2013, 02:16 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 02/01/2014, 12:09 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 02/04/2014, 12:31 AM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 02/03/2014, 01:13 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 02/03/2014, 01:44 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 02/03/2014, 01:59 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by tommy1729 - 02/03/2014, 10:35 PM RE: [Update] Comparision of 5 methods of interpolation to continuous tetration - by Gottfried - 02/03/2014, 11:07 PM

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Possible continuous extension of tetration to the reals Dasedes 0 1,369 10/10/2016, 04:57 AM Last Post: Dasedes Tribonacci interpolation ? tommy1729 0 1,950 09/08/2014, 10:37 AM Last Post: tommy1729 How many methods have this property ? tommy1729 1 2,522 05/22/2014, 04:56 PM Last Post: sheldonison (MSE): Comparision of powertowers -.Possibly interesting thread in MSE Gottfried 0 1,948 05/22/2013, 07:02 AM Last Post: Gottfried [UFO] - a contradiction in assuming continuous tetration? Gottfried 18 21,036 08/29/2010, 08:44 PM Last Post: Gottfried Self tetraroot constructed via Newton series interpolation mike3 2 6,576 07/11/2010, 03:38 AM Last Post: mike3 Borel summation and other continuation/summability methods for continuum sums mike3 2 5,221 12/30/2009, 09:51 PM Last Post: mike3 A false interpolation paradigm (?); a reconsideration Gottfried 4 7,350 09/17/2009, 08:17 AM Last Post: bo198214 exponential polynomial interpolation Gottfried 3 7,067 07/16/2008, 10:32 PM Last Post: andydude A related discussion on interpolation: factorial and gamma-function Gottfried 6 10,424 06/27/2008, 06:38 PM Last Post: Gottfried

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)