Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Our tetration concept is a wrong way?
By analogy with discrete multiplicative derivative of a function we can define a discrete iterative derivative . The inverse operator to it (discrete iterative integral) is known as superfunction or flow. It exhibits many properties common to integral such as that it is more difficult to express in closed form than the derivative and that a constant parameter appears in the process.

But what if to consider the local iterative integrals and derivatives? Lets define the local iterative derivative as follows:

where in the square brackets is the number of iterations. And also by analogy we can define the local iterative integral as an inverse operator.

As we can see, the local iterative integral of x+1 is addition, local iterative integral of addition is multiplication and local iterative integral of multiplication is exponentiation (just as in the case of discrete iterative integral).

There is no reason to define tetration as discrete iterative integral of exponentiation as we usually do. Rather we could better define tetration as the local iterative integral of exponentiation, this new definition will rid us of any problems of interpolation over discrete points, problems of uniqueness etc. Although it will give us completely different function as "local tetration"

The local tetration thus satisfies the following equation:

Any thoughts?

Messages In This Thread
Our tetration concept is a wrong way? - by Ansus - 11/06/2010, 12:08 AM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What am I doing wrong here? JmsNxn 2 5,978 05/26/2011, 02:21 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)