Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rank-Wise Approximations of Hyper-Operations
#41
That's a very deep question, Catullus. I honestly don't know the answer to it.



But to point out, when you use \(1 \le \alpha \le \eta\), you have a very fine growth in the hyper-operations. In that, they tend to \(\alpha\) for \(\Re(z) > 0\). So doing this in this interval is about the closest I ever got. Where, as I've written before, I'll write again.



$$

\vartheta(w,u) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty\sum_{k=0}^\infty \alpha \uparrow^{n+2} (k+1)\frac{u^nw^k}{n!k!}\\

$$



If we differentiate repeatedly in \(w\), we get:



$$

\frac{d^j}{dw^j} \vartheta(w,u) \approx e^w\sum_{n=0}^\infty \omega_{n+2} \frac{u^n}{n!}\\

$$

Where \(\omega_{n+2} = \alpha \uparrow^{n+2} \infty\), which are the fixed points of \(\alpha \uparrow^{n+1} z\). And if we differentiate repeatedly in \(u\), we get:


$$

\frac{d^l}{du^l} \vartheta(w,u) \approx \alpha e^{w}e^{u}\\

$$



Now as asymptotic limits, both of these things are differintegrable. Whereby:



$$

\frac{d^{s}}{du^{s}} \frac{d^{z}}{dw^z}\Big{|}_{u=0,w=0} \vartheta(w,u) = \alpha \uparrow^{s+2} z+1\\

$$



This will satisfy the functional equation, but only if you can turn this heuristic into a proof. Which, I was unable to do. But I was only off by a few lemmas.

Not sure what else you can do here... Your question is very fucking hard, don't expect an honest and easy answer to it.

Regards, James
Reply
#42
Maybe this is a dumb remark but ..

What if 2 fixpoints have the same Taylor polynomial when the fixpoints are recentered at 0 ?

So around fixpoint A we get a X + b X^2  + … ( recenter )

And the same polynomial around Fixpoint B.


The the fixpoint formulas would agree around the 2 fixpoints.

Another fixpoint in the middle might destroy the connection.

Otherwise I see little objection ?

Ofcourse you might need a periodic theta adjustment to get desirable properties such as real to real 
( kneser for instance ) 

Or even to make them analytically connected.

But what is stopping us to unite 3 fixpoints if they also locally have the same Taylor ?

—- 

Regards 

Tommy1729
Reply
#43
Ah unfortunately that's not possible in the general sense, it's very restrictive.

Assume that:

$$
f(z+c) - c = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j z^j\\
$$

And

$$
f(z+b) - b = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j z^j\\
$$


Then:

$$
f(z) = f(z+b-c) -b+c\\
$$

Then if \(\mu = b-c\) we're restricted to functions such that:

$$
f(z+\mu) = f(z) + \mu\\
$$

Which implies that \(f(z) - z\) is \(\mu\)-periodic.
Reply
#44
(06/30/2022, 12:05 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: Ah unfortunately that's not possible in the general sense, it's very restrictive.

Assume that:

$$
f(z+c) - c = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j z^j\\
$$

And

$$
f(z+b) - b = \sum_{j=1}^\infty a_j z^j\\
$$


Then:

$$
f(z) = f(z+b-c) -b+c\\
$$

Then if \(\mu = b-c\) we're restricted to functions such that:

$$
f(z+\mu) = f(z) + \mu\\
$$

Which implies that \(f(z) - z\) is \(\mu\)-periodic.

wow this resonates so hard with the new thread i started before i read this !

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#45
Question 
If you used similar uniqueness criterion to the one I proposed for tetration‚ but for higher hyper-operations than for tetration‚ when in the complex plane would a circulated to the infinity converge?
ฅ(ミ⚈ ﻌ ⚈ミ)ฅ
Please remember to stay hydrated.
Sincerely: Catullus
Reply
#46
(07/05/2022, 01:49 AM)Catullus Wrote: If you used similar uniqueness criterion to the one I proposed for tetration‚ but for higher hyper-operations than for tetration‚ when in the complex plane would a circulated to the infinity converge?

I'd wager a conjecture is in order.

There exists a domain \(a \in \mathcal{D}\) such that:

$$
a \uparrow^\infty z\\
$$

is finite. I'd propose that solely (under any iteration protocol) this domain is \(\mathcal{D} \supseteq \mathcal{S}\) for the Shell-thron region \(\mathcal{S}\). This would be based on the fact that I know \(1 \le \alpha \le \eta\) converges for \(\Re(z) > 0\).

As we sort of move and iterate more exotic areas of \(a \in \mathcal{S}\), the domain \(\Re(z) > 0\) moves in some manner. I do not know how. But, bounded iterations ellicit bounded iterations. So since bounded iterations of the exponential exist in the shell-thron region, and these iterations ellicit bounded iterations themself. We can expect that the Shell thron region \(a \in \mathcal{S}\) always has a value \(z\) such that:

$$
a \uparrow^\infty z = a\\
$$

This is all I'm willing to talk on the matter. When the simple answer is I don't know, and I don't think anyone knows. I think this would be worthy of the greats if you could answer this question entirely.
Reply
#47
Question 
What about i circulated to the infinity?
Does that converge?
If so, then what does it converge to?
ฅ(ミ⚈ ﻌ ⚈ミ)ฅ
Please remember to stay hydrated.
Sincerely: Catullus
Reply
#48
Question 
What would happen if you used did something similar to the uniqueness criteria for tetration I proposed, but for defining non whole number rank functions in the Fast-growing hierarchy?
ฅ(ミ⚈ ﻌ ⚈ミ)ฅ
Please remember to stay hydrated.
Sincerely: Catullus
Reply
#49
(09/03/2022, 06:36 AM)Catullus Wrote: What would happen if you used did something similar to the uniqueness criteria for tetration I proposed, but for defining non whole number rank functions in the Fast-growing hierarchy?

Catullus, this question is a question very similarly asked by John H. Conway. Conway was huge on number puzzles/game theory/weird integer iteration stuff; but what gets overlooked is his work on Hyper Operators. It is where we get Conway Chained Arrows notation: \(a \to b \to n = a \uparrow^{n} b\). And where he describes a formal algebra, very well mind you, using this notation. John H. Conway also went on to develop surreal numbers. The idea of a surreal number system, is very similar to the Fast growing hierarchy. It is intended to act in a similar manner. The thing is, these things are not proven to be equivalent (As I remember, unless there's been an update).

So you can, in the surreal number system, theoretically take a surreal number \(\omega\) and write \(2 \to 2 \to \omega = 2\). Whether the \(\omega\) in surreal numbers equates to something like \(\aleph_0\)--in a meaningful manner, is still up for grabs. I highly suggest you study Conway in this direction. But, again, this has little to do with the calculus you'll find on this forum. This forum leans heavily into calculus; and what you are asking are foundational logic questions. Which, on similar forums you might find more interesting takes.

Regards
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Question Hyper-Operational Salad Numbers Catullus 9 704 09/17/2022, 01:15 AM
Last Post: Catullus
Question Octonion Hyper-Operations Catullus 3 773 07/05/2022, 08:53 AM
Last Post: Catullus
  Thoughts on hyper-operations of rational but non-integer orders? VSO 4 5,002 06/30/2022, 11:41 PM
Last Post: MphLee
Question Hyper-Operations, Base Pi Catullus 2 541 06/24/2022, 08:46 AM
Last Post: Catullus
Question Weak Hyper-Operational Etas and Euler Numbers Catullus 0 287 06/17/2022, 09:45 AM
Last Post: Catullus
  Tetration and higher-order operations on transfinite ordinals quickfur 9 21,326 06/09/2022, 10:50 PM
Last Post: Catullus
  On my old fractional calculus approach to hyper-operations JmsNxn 14 6,695 07/07/2021, 07:35 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  hyper 0 dantheman163 2 6,231 03/09/2021, 10:28 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  On to C^\infty--and attempts at C^\infty hyper-operations JmsNxn 11 6,722 03/02/2021, 09:55 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Could there be an "arctic geometry" by raising the rank of all operations? Syzithryx 2 5,124 07/24/2019, 05:59 PM
Last Post: Syzithryx



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)