Infinite Pentation (and x-srt-x)
#11
nuninho1980 Wrote:yes. but I don't get value "x" of a^^x if x<1 using your code "tetration and slog". Sad

Don't be sad, that's to be expected. My code only applies when (a>1), which would require that (x>1) for this function.
#12
So this is my attempt at a proof, and there are a bunch of inequalities, which always confuse me Tongue, so let me know if there are any mistakes.

Let \( \eta = e^{1/e} \) as usual. I will use k (instead of n) to avoid confusion with \( \eta \).

Lemma 1 (Knoebel). \( (a < b) \) iff \( ({}^{k}a < {}^{k}b) \) for all \( a,b,k > 1 \).

Lemma 2. \( \eta < {}^{x}\eta < e \) for all real \( x > 1 \).
Proof.
The base-\( \eta \) tetrational function is continuous and monotonic?

Lemma 3. \( b^x > x + 1 \) for all positive real \( x \ge 5 \) and real \( b > \eta \).
Proof.
The function \( (x+1)^{1/x} < \eta \) for all \( x \ge 5 \), thus \( \eta^x > x+1 \). If \( b > \eta > 1 \), then \( b^x > \eta^x \), so \( b^x > x+1 \).

Lemma 4 (lower bound). For all integer \( k \ge 3 \), \( \eta < a_k = \text{srt}_k(k) \).
Proof.
Since \( k \ge 3 \), then obviously \( k > e \). Together with lemma (2), this implies that \( {}^{k}\eta < e < k \). Substituting \( k = {}^{k}(a_k) \) (hypothesis), this can be written as \( {}^{k}\eta < {}^{k}(a_k) \) which implies \( \eta < a_k \) by lemma (1).

Lemma 5 (decreasing). For all integer \( k \ge 5 \) and \( a_k = \text{srt}_k(k) \), \( a_{k} > a_{k+1} \).
Proof.
We have \( {}^{k}\left(a_{k}\right) = k \) for all integer \( k \) by definition. It follows that
\(
\begin{tabular}{rl}
a_{k+1}^{\left({}^{k}\left(a_{k+1}\right)\right)} & = {}^{k+1}\left(a_{k+1}\right) \\
1 + {}^{k}\left(a_{k+1}\right) & < {}^{k+1}\left(a_{k+1}\right) \\
1 + {}^{k}\left(a_{k+1}\right) & < k + 1 \\
{}^{k}\left(a_{k+1}\right) & < k
\end{tabular}
\)
by lemma (3). Thus \( {}^{k}\left(a_{k+1}\right) < {}^{k}\left(a_{k}\right) \) which implies \( a_{k+1} < a_k \) by lemma (1).

Theorem. \( \lim_{x\to\infty} \text{srt}_x(x) = \eta \)
Proof.
\( \eta < \text{srt}_{k+1}({k+1}) < \text{srt}_k(k) \) for all \( k \ge 5 \) by lemma (4) and lemma (5).
... In the limit, the squeeze theorem and completeness should guarantee that the limit exists and converges to \( \eta \).

Is this right?

Andrew Robbins
#13
So I tried using regular and natural tetration to fill out the rest of the graph. I almost ignored using bases where \( 1 < a < \eta \) because these bases would have 2 fixed points: (1) the upper fixed point would overlap the "blue" region which I already calculated with interpolation (but a good area for comparison), and (2) the lower fixed point would overlap the "green" region which I already calculated with natural iteration (also a good area for comparison).

The only part I used regular tetration for was the "red" region, which corresponds to bases where \( e^{-e} < a < 1 \). Using pure regular iteration from the primary fixed point of \( a^z \) the base-a tetrational is real-valued only for integers, and complex-valued everywhere else. So I fudged a little bit to make the graph, I solve the equation \( \text{Re}({}^{x}a) = x \) and these points are what you see in the "red" region of the graph. I'm pretty sure these are wrong, and that the graph would have to be complex here (if tetrationals for bases less than 1 form complex outputs for real inputs), so it's more of a heuristic than a continuation of the blue curve.

   

Andrew Robbins


Attached Files
.pdf   x-srt-x-more.pdf (Size: 10.29 KB / Downloads: 669)
#14
andydude Wrote:\( \eta < \text{srt}_{k+1}({k+1}) < \text{srt}_k(k) \) for all \( k \ge 5 \) by lemma (4) and lemma (5).
... In the limit, the squeeze theorem and completeness should guarantee that the limit exists and converges to \( \eta \).

Is this right?

I dont think so. When the sequence is decreasing and bounded it has a limit. But this limit could be probably bigger than \( \eta \). Or did I overlook something?
#15
(04/13/2009, 05:01 PM)bo198214 Wrote:
andydude Wrote:\( \eta < \text{srt}_{k+1}({k+1}) < \text{srt}_k(k) \) for all \( k \ge 5 \) by lemma (4) and lemma (5).
... In the limit, the squeeze theorem and completeness should guarantee that the limit exists and converges to \( \eta \).

Is this right?

I dont think so. When the sequence is decreasing and bounded it has a limit. But this limit could be probably bigger than \( \eta \). Or did I overlook something?

\( \eta < \text{srt}_{k+1}({k+1}) < \text{srt}_k(k) \) for all \( k \ge 5 \)

so the limit must be eta when lim k = oo because the rule is < and not =< , i think bo has overlooked that !?!

or did i miss something ?
#16
(05/03/2009, 10:42 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: \( \eta < \text{srt}_{k+1}({k+1}) < \text{srt}_k(k) \) for all \( k \ge 5 \)

so the limit must be eta when lim k = oo because the rule is < and not =< , i think bo has overlooked that !?!

or did i miss something ?

yes, take a similar example:
\( -1 < \frac{1}{k+1} < \frac{1}{k} \)

by your argumentation \( \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{1}{k} = -1 \).
#17
(05/03/2009, 10:51 PM)bo198214 Wrote:
(05/03/2009, 10:42 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: \( \eta < \text{srt}_{k+1}({k+1}) < \text{srt}_k(k) \) for all \( k \ge 5 \)

so the limit must be eta when lim k = oo because the rule is < and not =< , i think bo has overlooked that !?!

or did i miss something ?

yes, take a similar example:
\( -1 < \frac{1}{k+1} < \frac{1}{k} \)

by your argumentation \( \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{1}{k} = -1 \).

thats not the same , the limit value cannot possibly be smaller than eta , so eta is the ultimate boundary.

and because any infinite tetration of real base (eta + q) = oo

our resulting limit must be between eta < " limit "< eta + q

taking lim q = 0+ => " limit " = eta.
#18
(05/03/2009, 10:57 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: thats not the same , the limit value cannot possibly be smaller than eta ,
Of course not the limit in the above case is 0. It is *greater* than -1.
Thats what I already said in my original objection: the limit can possibly be *greater* than \( \eta \).

Quote:and because any infinite tetration of real base (eta + q) = oo

proof?
#19
(05/03/2009, 10:57 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: and because any infinite tetration of real base (eta + q) = oo

I thought this was about infinite pentation, not infinite tetration.
#20
(05/04/2009, 08:20 PM)BenStandeven Wrote:
(05/03/2009, 10:57 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: and because any infinite tetration of real base (eta + q) = oo

I thought this was about infinite pentation, not infinite tetration.

Well depends how you interpret it. Surely the title "infinite pentation" means
\( \lim_{n\to\infty} b [5] n \)
which is the same as infinitely repeated tetration, which tommy refers to.


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  another infinite composition gaussian method clone tommy1729 2 941 01/24/2023, 12:53 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Pentation fractal Daniel 11 3,789 08/03/2022, 03:04 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Infinite tetration and superroot of infinitesimal Ivars 129 245,637 06/18/2022, 11:56 PM
Last Post: Catullus
  Interpolating an infinite sequence ? tommy1729 14 4,829 06/17/2022, 10:41 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Improved infinite composition method tommy1729 5 4,335 07/10/2021, 04:07 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  pentation and hexation sheldonison 9 25,886 09/18/2019, 02:34 PM
Last Post: sheldonison
  [repost] A nowhere analytic infinite sum for tetration. tommy1729 0 4,071 03/20/2018, 12:16 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Tetration is pentation. This deserve more thinking. marraco 2 8,478 03/30/2015, 02:54 PM
Last Post: marraco
  Mizugadro, pentation, Book Kouznetsov 41 112,404 03/02/2015, 08:13 PM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Remark on Gottfried's "problem with an infinite product" power tower variation tommy1729 4 12,005 05/06/2014, 09:47 PM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)