Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bounded Analytic Hyper operators
#11
@ 5x 3rd : You are correct !

I wonder what you guys will call it Smile

I repeat : Does this method agree with koenigs ?

Im wondering if this method also simplifies towards the continuum sum.
( that might have affect on methods based on continuum sums that are in an " unfinished state " )

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#12
(03/28/2015, 08:59 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: I repeat : Does this method agree with koenigs ?
What is koenigs? Are you talking about the regular iteration? If so, in the case of JmsNxn's tetration, yes, any two tetrations for bases are equal if they have the same period. See proposition 10 and corollary 8 in this paper
I'm petty sure that this can also be proved using the techniques in JmsNxn's paper
As for the super root thing... it's not even clear if it even results in a tetration, since the super root has no nice recurrence relation we can exploit to prove it.
Quote:Im wondering if this method also simplifies towards the continuum sum.
( that might have affect on methods based on continuum sums that are in an " unfinished state " )
With this we can easily define a continuum sum:

That this works can be easily verified with the newton series identity. Using that, it can also be seen that it extends faulhaber's formula (i.e. it maps polynomials to polynomials)
Now the continuum sum formula is

for all positive integers z. If the LHS satisfies the bounds for Ramanujan's master theorem to apply, then this equality applies for all z in the right half-plane and is just a restatement of that fact.
I'm almost certain that the equality applies to JmsNxn's tetration, but I have no idea how to prove that.
It would also imply that the iterational form probably converges to it, too.
Reply
#13
Off Topic: @Fivexthethird About continuum sum (is the inverse of the difference operator right?) if yes have you checked the other paper of JmsNxn? The paper on the bounded Hos. was uploaded on arxiv paired with one about indefinite sum operator.

James Nixon - On indefinite sum in fractional calculus
MathStackExchange account:MphLee
Reply
#14
Very intresting.

Im having a bad week it seems , im forgetting things ...

Why was it again that interpolation of 1/( b^^a ) thus

D^z 1/( b^^0) + 1/( b^^1) x + 1/( b^^2) x^2 + ...

is not a good way for getting at tetration ?
Is it because 1/exp(1/x) = exp(-1/x) is not analytic at 0 ?

Or is it the problems with negative or imaginary iterations ?
Maybe this is C^oo but not analytic ?

Maybe I should read a few things again....

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#15
(03/29/2015, 03:35 AM)fivexthethird Wrote:
(03/28/2015, 08:59 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: I repeat : Does this method agree with koenigs ?
What is koenigs? Are you talking about the regular iteration? If so, in the case of JmsNxn's tetration, yes, any two tetrations for bases are equal if they have the same period.

What about the 1-periodic wave then ?
Maybe I misunderstood you.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#16
Hmm after some consideration the continuum sum methods remain problematic ...

It seems all conditions of everything we have so far are to strong for the continuum sum methods.

This requires additional thinking.

Its on my to-do list.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#17
Since on the other thread about Zeration I learnt about the base change formula... what happens if we apply it to JmsNxn's tetration? Could we reach every base?
MathStackExchange account:MphLee
Reply
#18
(03/29/2015, 07:08 PM)MphLee Wrote: Since on the other thread about Zeration I learnt about the base change formula... what happens if we apply it to JmsNxn's tetration? Could we reach every base?

I think "We" believe the base change is not analytic.

Going from an analytic function to another analytic function with a nonanalytic function is usually not possible.

With "We" I mean the top posters at this forum.

Sheldon has expressed his strong disbelief in base change being analytic and probably others too.

This does not mean that idea will never be usefull.
But probably not in the way you think right now.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#19
Hmm the superroots probably do no iterate analytically from ssqrt_n to ssqrt_(n+1) so that gives us a problem.

Maybe I was to fast in assuming we can have tetration for any base from these.

Or maybe we do get tetration but with many singularities.

Need to consider this.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#20
As for the continuum sum , I fear that we do not have the condition of carlson's theorem so this might fail for fast growing functions or equations involving continuum sums and fast growing functions ?

regards

tommy1729
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thoughts on hyper-operations of rational but non-integer orders? VSO 2 244 09/09/2019, 10:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  [repost] A nowhere analytic infinite sum for tetration. tommy1729 0 998 03/20/2018, 12:16 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
Question Analytic matrices and the base units Xorter 2 2,149 07/19/2017, 10:34 AM
Last Post: Xorter
  Hyper-volume by integration Xorter 0 1,261 04/08/2017, 01:52 PM
Last Post: Xorter
  Non-analytic Xorter 0 1,282 04/04/2017, 10:38 PM
Last Post: Xorter
  A conjectured uniqueness criteria for analytic tetration Vladimir Reshetnikov 13 10,153 02/17/2017, 05:21 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Hyper operators in computability theory JmsNxn 5 3,568 02/15/2017, 10:07 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 1,374 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Is bounded tetration is analytic in the base argument? JmsNxn 0 1,216 01/02/2017, 06:38 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Are tetrations fixed points analytic? JmsNxn 2 2,628 12/14/2016, 08:50 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)