• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 between addition and multiplication tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 1,372 Threads: 336 Joined: Feb 2009 03/16/2011, 12:04 AM seems my quote was not relevant. i dont know what you mean by x {y} z then. with respect , but i find it confusingly explained. first it was a mean , now its a kind of tetration ? it wasnt the limiting mean i quoted , so what is it ? perhaps define x {y} z = ... with real math symbols instead of pseudocode. i cannot discuss things i do not understand. tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 1,372 Threads: 336 Joined: Feb 2009 03/16/2011, 12:18 AM perhaps x {y} z is the mean ONLY for 0 < y < 1 and x {y} z for y > 1 is simply the (y-floor(y)) th iteration of x {floor(y)} z. but that has troubles : the definition is piecewise and the iterations are not uniquely defined for fractional iterations. and x {y} z is not analytic. JmsNxn Long Time Fellow    Posts: 291 Threads: 67 Joined: Dec 2010 03/16/2011, 12:20 AM (This post was last modified: 03/16/2011, 12:28 AM by JmsNxn.) If the operators over {q}, 0<=q<=1, are defined with an identity given by S(q), then they can define tetration if we allow: q:log(x) = exp^[-q](x) (1) x {q} y = -q:log(q:log(x) + q:log(y)) (2) x {1+q} y = -q:log(q:log(x) * y) you yourself discussed these operators, I was pleasantly surprised to see someone come to the same formula as me. Therefore, when I was talking about solving for tetration I was talking about defining x {q} y numerically as this modified Gauss mean and then conversely also allowing the two laws of logarithmic semi-operators (1). This would imply evaluations of rational values for tetration since semi-operators depend on tetration given (1) and (2). Sadly however, this pseudo Gauss mean yields no identity, or no universal value S(q) for all x E C such that: x {q} S(q) = x this reduces the logarithmic laws (1) & (2) as null since q:log(S(q)) = 0 is an essential identity, and there is no value S(q) (03/16/2011, 12:18 AM)tommy1729 Wrote: perhaps x {y} z is the mean ONLY for 0 < y < 1 and x {y} z for y > 1 is simply the (y-floor(y)) th iteration of x {floor(y)} z. by lloyd rational exponentiation, or {y} for 1 ./sesqui 2 1.5 2 4.000000000 > ./sesqui 2 0.5 2 4.000000000 > ./sesqui 3 1.5 2 7.310586452 > ./sesqui 3 0.5 3 7.424041271 > ./sesqui 4 1.5 2 11.173642159 > ./sesqui 4 0.5 4 11.654329300 > ./sesqui 11 1.5 2 49.238006592 > ./sesqui 11 0.5 11 61.141593933 > ./sesqui 134 1.5 2 1893.553344727 > ./sesqui 134 0.5 134 5044.535156250 Though I admit I don't totally see why your identity is required, it seems to be by analogy with the gamma extension to the factorial. Could you explain it in simple terms? Thanks! JmsNxn Long Time Fellow    Posts: 291 Threads: 67 Joined: Dec 2010 03/16/2011, 02:43 AM (03/16/2011, 02:35 AM)lloyd Wrote: Hey James, unfortunately my functions don't meet your requirement :-( x {1.5} 2 != x {0.5} x, here are some random examples for x = 2,3,4,11,134 > ./sesqui 2 1.5 2 4.000000000 > ./sesqui 2 0.5 2 4.000000000 > ./sesqui 3 1.5 2 7.310586452 > ./sesqui 3 0.5 3 7.424041271 > ./sesqui 4 1.5 2 11.173642159 > ./sesqui 4 0.5 4 11.654329300 > ./sesqui 11 1.5 2 49.238006592 > ./sesqui 11 0.5 11 61.141593933 > ./sesqui 134 1.5 2 1893.553344727 > ./sesqui 134 0.5 134 5044.535156250 Though I admit I don't totally see why your identity is required, it seems to be by analogy with the gamma extension to the factorial. Could you explain it in simple terms? Thanks! well the identity isn't required per se, it's just aesthetically appealing for an operator to have an identity. The only reason we would need an identity is if we wanted to use semi-operators to solve for tetration. under the following expansion: x {q} y = -q:log(q:log(x) + q:log(y)) x {q} S(q) = x = -q:log(q:log(x) + q:log(S(q))), therefore q:log(S(q))= 0 therefore S(q) = -q:log(0) = sexp(q-1) but since there is no identity for the sesqui operator all this is null. lloyd Junior Fellow  Posts: 10 Threads: 1 Joined: Mar 2011 03/16/2011, 05:16 PM Sorry, didn't mean the identity function as in 1. I meant the identity (as in equality) that you said was necessary for the system, that x {1.5} 2 had to equal x {0.5} x. JmsNxn Long Time Fellow    Posts: 291 Threads: 67 Joined: Dec 2010 03/16/2011, 05:47 PM x {1.5} 2 = x {0.5} x This is the general requirement that rational operators be recursive. Consider, x {0} y = x + y x {1} y = x * y x {2} y = x ^ y x {3} y = x ^^ y x * 2 = x + x x {1} 2 = x {0} x x ^ 2 = x * x x {2} 2 = x {1} x x ^^ 2 = x ^ x x {3} 2 = x {2} x etc etc... It only be natural that this law holds for rational operators. Generally, if {r} is any operator, than {r+1} is the superfunction of {r}. the law stated mathematically is: (x {r+1} (n-1)) {r} x = x {r+1} n lloyd Junior Fellow  Posts: 10 Threads: 1 Joined: Mar 2011 03/16/2011, 07:13 PM (03/16/2011, 05:47 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: x * 2 = x + x x {1} 2 = x {0} x x ^ 2 = x * x x {2} 2 = x {1} x x ^^ 2 = x ^ x x {3} 2 = x {2} x Thanks, good explanation. « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post A fundamental flaw of an operator who's super operator is addition JmsNxn 4 7,890 06/23/2019, 08:19 PM Last Post: Chenjesu Between addition and product ( pic ) tommy1729 4 4,414 07/10/2016, 07:32 AM Last Post: Gottfried special addition tommy1729 0 2,062 01/11/2015, 02:00 AM Last Post: tommy1729 extension of the Ackermann function to operators less than addition JmsNxn 2 4,573 11/06/2011, 08:06 PM Last Post: JmsNxn Periodic functions that are periodic not by addition JmsNxn 0 2,992 04/17/2011, 09:54 PM Last Post: JmsNxn

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) 