Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved
(06/06/2011, 04:39 AM)sheldonison Wrote: mylatest code, which includes support. This would also make it easier for other to try it.
fatb(a,t,b) = {
  if (t>=1, return (cheta(invcheta(b*cheta(invcheta(a)+1-t))+t-1)));
  if (t<1,  return (cheta(invcheta( cheta(invcheta(a)-t)+cheta(invcheta(b)-t) )+t)));

Oh that's great! I'd love to see what happens for complex operator values, I'll just modify your code slightly to say real(t) under the if conditions.

(06/06/2011, 04:39 AM)sheldonison Wrote: I've gotten as far as quickly verifying that for t=0, we have addition, t=1, we have multiplication, and t=2 is exponentiation.

for example,
fatb(3,0,4)=7, which is 3+4
fatb(3,1,4)=12, which is 3x4
fatb(3,2,4)=81, which is 3^4
what does it mean that fatb(3,-1,4)=5.429897..?
Is there a smooth continuation to a function for t=3, which would be tetration? if a<e=2.718, then it appears that the non integer nodes have complex values, though perhaps the sexpeta/invsexpeta functions could be used in place of cheta/invcheta (it might even be a smooth transition).
- Sheldon

fatb(3, -1, 4) = 5.429897, is the value of 3 delta 4; where deltation is the operator which satisfies the following conditions:
, it's commutative and addition is spread across it:
, and finally, it's defined by the following recursion formula:

Basically, the whole domain of operators from are designed to: continue the ring structure of {t-1} and {t} found across addition and multiplication, and multiplication and exponentiation; and are designed to provide a smooth extension of operators to the negative domain. It differs from zeration insofar as zeration is defined by proper recursion and it's discontinuous. It's better than zeration insofar as the series of operators can be continued infinitely.

As of now, it's possible to compute for a>e, and , which would be rational tetration. So actually yes, I can evaluate over domain
The formula is given by:

And lastly, I tried using sexp/slog base for a,b < e and the graph of is not smooth and there are two humps at about {0.5} and {1.5} which is very unflattering. I was surprised when the cheta function worked, but it did. I have to give myself time to think about it first, but right now I'm sure the extension for a,b <= e is right infront of our eyes.

I edited your code and tested if
fatb(3, i, 3) = fatb(3, i+1, 2), and it does. Ackerman function is entering the complex plane me thinks.

Edit again:
Quote: if a<e=2.718, then it appears that the non integer nodes have complex values
I was wondering if you could explain what you mean by this? Is there a way to calculate a,b < e using the cheta function?

Messages In This Thread
RE: Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved - by JmsNxn - 06/06/2011, 05:34 AM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thoughts on hyper-operations of rational but non-integer orders? VSO 2 1,460 09/09/2019, 10:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Hyper operators in computability theory JmsNxn 5 5,580 02/15/2017, 10:07 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 1,957 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  holomorphic binary operators over naturals; generalized hyper operators JmsNxn 15 19,731 08/22/2016, 12:19 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  The bounded analytic semiHyper-operators JmsNxn 2 4,457 05/27/2016, 04:03 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Bounded Analytic Hyper operators JmsNxn 25 25,555 04/01/2015, 06:09 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Incredible reduction for Hyper operators JmsNxn 0 2,701 02/13/2014, 06:20 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  interpolating the hyper operators JmsNxn 3 6,112 06/07/2013, 09:03 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Number theory and hyper operators JmsNxn 7 9,309 05/29/2013, 09:24 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Number theoretic formula for hyper operators (-oo, 2] at prime numbers JmsNxn 2 4,779 07/17/2012, 02:12 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)