Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
I thought I'd compile some of the things I know...
#11
(01/25/2021, 11:54 PM)sheldonison Wrote: I look forward to seeing your updated paper.

Thanks, Sheldon. I'm working on making it as air-tight as I possibly can. And on top of that, being as explanatory as possible. I also have been working on better explaining why is holomorphic by using similar analogies I've used in other papers. Where I didn't bother to initially, because I'd already done it a bunch of times in separate papers. It can be a drag to re-explain everything from previous papers in the next paper... I just worked with an construction of and didn't bother with the years of intuition which led me to construct this. I'm glad you're at least convinced is holomorphic...

Hope to zoom call with you again soon. Give me a couple more days to hammer out this paper a bit more and hopefully get closer to convincing you of holomorphy.

Regards, James
Reply
#12
(01/26/2021, 04:39 AM)JmsNxn Wrote:
(01/25/2021, 11:54 PM)sheldonison Wrote: I look forward to seeing your updated paper.

Thanks, Sheldon. I'm working on making it as air-tight as I possibly can. And on top of that, being as explanatory as possible. I also have been working on better explaining why is holomorphic by using similar analogies I've used in other papers. Where I didn't bother to initially, because I'd already done it a bunch of times in separate papers. It can be a drag to re-explain everything from previous papers in the next paper... I just worked with an construction of and didn't bother with the years of intuition which led me to construct this. I'm glad you're at least convinced is holomorphic...

Hope to zoom call with you again soon. Give me a couple more days to hammer out this paper a bit more and hopefully get closer to convincing you of holomorphy.

Regards, James
Hi James,
If anyone else wants to join the zoom call, send me an email at shel@sheltx.com with Tetration zoom call in the header; math.eretandre handle, and time zone. I'll set it up once James is ready, during a weekend.
- Sheldon
Reply
#13
So, I think I have it complete. I've added about 15 pages to this paper trying to make it air-tight, and drawing out every string. The proofs have increased in length, and all the things I took for granted have been better explained. I'm going to sit on it for maybe 5 more days, and go into proof-reading mode; making sure I haven't made any glaring mistakes. But I thought I'd share the shift in my thinking which allows for a more elegant approach.

Now, as we've done it, we've written our solution:



Now, as we can write and --both geometrically--and . This can be done, given that is holomorphic on upto a nowhere dense set--which is the real challenge of the paper. Then, we can write,



Again, almost everywhere. But this converges geometrically to,



And it's fairly routine to show that this function converges uniformly on compact sets for and as . So in an essence, to get this construction to work, we want to look at the recursion from the opposite end to fill in the blanks that are missing. Now this form is definitely not ideal for the real line, but it works well on strips way off in the left hand plane. It also clearly shows why our construction CANNOT be holomorphic in a strip larger than --it would be periodic if it were and tetration can't be periodic. So branch cuts arise and cluster in the iteration at the lines because otherwise we'd get a periodic tetration (which is absolute nonsense). And with it different appear, as otherwise we'd achieve periodicity.

Some quick notes on ; not too sure which we converge to, but each strip should garner a different . The key fact being, there is some and in which this iteration will be real valued on the real line; which would correspond to the strips and .

I'll set a deadline for myself on when I'll post this updated version. I'll release it on wednesday whether I feel it's perfect or not. If I keep hacking at this sooner or later it'll end up being a 50 page paper saying every possible thing I can say; including alternative representations... that may be a bit much for a quick update...


EDIT:

I think a zoom call for next saturday will be best. I'll send the request later--would 1pm be okay? Not to do it too late, but our 9am zoom call isn't optimal. Even though I live in toronto, I am on australia time, Sheldon. Lol.
Reply
#14
(01/30/2021, 12:46 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: ... I think a zoom call for next saturday will be best. I'll send the request later--would 1pm be okay? Not to do it too late, but our 9am zoom call isn't optimal. Even though I live in toronto, I am on australia time, Sheldon. Lol.

James,

Next Saturday Feb 6th, 1pm eastern, 1800 GMT works great for me!  I'll also post the zoom link separately to invite all Tetration forum members to join!  My plan it to make this a monthly meeting with your paper being the first meeting!  

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89038247428?pwd=UFo1dmVGT21YTHpSbTNqUjMyazUzQT09
Meeting ID: 890 3824 7428
Passcode: 322183

I have many ideas for subsequent meetings; for example I'd like to cover Peter Walker's 1991 paper with the proof, as well as the conjecture that this is a nowhere analytic function. Discuss Ecalle's asymptotic series for the Abel function for .  Peter Walker's paper also includes the simultaneous equation solution, which was later reinvented as Andrew's slog.  I think this could be a lot of fun!
- Sheldon
Reply
#15
I'd love to talk about those ideas! I always liked Andy's slog, but I'm horrible with matrices so it never made much sense (other than the broad motions). Has it ever actually been shown to be analytic? I really enjoyed Peter Walker's paper too.
Reply
#16
(02/01/2021, 09:31 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: I'd love to talk about those ideas! I always liked Andy's slog, but I'm horrible with matrices so it never made much sense (other than the broad motions). Has it ever actually been shown to be analytic? I really enjoyed Peter Walker's paper too.

As far as we know (here) it has not been shown to be analytic.
On the other hand if it converges to a C^oo function then it is analytic because it is a taylor series.
I mentioned at least 1 method that forces to solve infinite systems of linear equations however it has not been proven to give a nonzero-radius hence not proven c^oo or even convergeant let alone analytic.

I even discovered a set of equations that turned out to be truncated equations equivalent to Andy/Peter , hence a rediscovery in some way.

Unfortunately my other viewpoint was not helpful.

Analytic tetration is a difficult subject !


Btw I posted a correction to the NBLR method ( the recent closed form based on phi and lambertW).
You should probably want to see it.


regards

tommy1729
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I thought I'd take a crack at base = 1/2 JmsNxn 6 1,004 09/30/2021, 05:38 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)