Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved
#22
Hi James,

I do not really know, whether the following matches your input here; but screening through older discussions I just found an older post of Mike (I'd saved it by copying from google.groups). He observed the following and asked

Henryk had answered with some proof of convergence and rate of convergence. I had an idea to reformulate this in a way using somehow "lower degree operators" than addition but could not make it better computable, so I didn't involve then further.

If I get your approach right this can be used for such "lower order" operators? Say

and for the h-fold iterated log( 3) then Mike's limit can be expressed

where the operator-precedence is lower the more negative the index at the plus is (so we evaluate it from the left).

First question: is this in fact an application of your "rational operator"?

And if it is so, then second question: does this help to evaluate this to higher depth of iteration than we can do it when we try it just by log and exp alone (we can do it to iteration 4 or 5 at max I think) ?

Gottfried

cite:
Quote:In article
<20f2d3ea-1e87-45dc-86b2-a917f89e9370@i18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,
mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I noticed this.
>
> log(3) ~ 1.098612288668109691395245237
> log(log(3^3)) ~ 1.192660116284808707569579569
> log(log(log(3^3^3))) ~ 1.220795907132767865324020633
> log(log(log(log(3^3^3^3)))) ~ 1.221729301870251716316203810

> (calculated indirectly via identity log(x^y) = y log(x).)
> log(log(log(log(log(3^3^3^3^3))))) ~ 1.221729301870251827504003124

> (calculated indirectly via identity log(log(x^x^y)) = y log(x) + log
> (log(x)).)
>
> It seems to be stabilizing on some weird value, around 1.2217293.
> What is this? And we seem to run out of log identities here making
> it infeasible to compute further approximations.
>
> Has this been examined before?
Gottfried Helms, Kassel
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved - by Gottfried - 06/11/2011, 02:33 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thoughts on hyper-operations of rational but non-integer orders? VSO 2 1,195 09/09/2019, 10:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Hyper operators in computability theory JmsNxn 5 5,126 02/15/2017, 10:07 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 1,840 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  holomorphic binary operators over naturals; generalized hyper operators JmsNxn 15 18,869 08/22/2016, 12:19 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  The bounded analytic semiHyper-operators JmsNxn 2 4,242 05/27/2016, 04:03 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Bounded Analytic Hyper operators JmsNxn 25 24,074 04/01/2015, 06:09 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Incredible reduction for Hyper operators JmsNxn 0 2,580 02/13/2014, 06:20 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  interpolating the hyper operators JmsNxn 3 5,811 06/07/2013, 09:03 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Number theory and hyper operators JmsNxn 7 8,888 05/29/2013, 09:24 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Number theoretic formula for hyper operators (-oo, 2] at prime numbers JmsNxn 2 4,573 07/17/2012, 02:12 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)