Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Means and intermediate operations (was: Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved)
#1
(06/08/2011, 11:47 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: However, I am willing to concede the idea of changing from base eta to base root 2.

That is to say if we define:



This will give the time honoured result, and aesthetic necessity in my point of view, of:
for all .

I like this also because it makes and potentially analytic over since 2 and 4 are fix points.

I also propose writing


I thought about this for some time and considered interpolation between arithmetic mean and geometric mean, coming to a rather curious result. The 'mean' function with fails to satisfy a property of means:

Define This yields the arithmetic mean for and the geometric mean for .
For ,




So it's not a 'true mean' in the sense that the scalar multiplication property fails. This result makes me doubt that the property may be satisfied for . Is there a way to rectify this issue, i.e. find a solution with and such that the property is satisfied?
Reply
#2
(06/14/2011, 04:22 AM)Cherrina_Pixie Wrote: I thought about this for some time and considered interpolation between arithmetic mean and geometric mean, coming to a rather curious result. The 'mean' function with fails to satisfy a property of means:

Define This yields the arithmetic mean for and the geometric mean for .

I just want to add the observation that:
and satisfy the modified property
.
Reply
#3
(06/14/2011, 09:17 AM)bo198214 Wrote: I just want to add the observation that:
and satisfy the modified property
.

And if we define


then we have for integers (and even non-integers) s=t and s=t-1:

Reply
#4
Actually, I think if we use logarithmic semi-operators to notate this:

if

then:
for

This means, that multiplication isn't spreadable across [0,1], but logarithmic semi-operator multiplication is spreadable across [0,1]. Or put mathematically:


and


This should hold for complex numbers. Given the restriction on sigma. bo pretty much already noted this though, I just thought I'd give it a go Tongue.

I'm not sure if there's anything really interesting you can do with these averages.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  On my old fractional calculus approach to hyper-operations JmsNxn 14 1,085 07/07/2021, 07:35 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  [MSE-SOLVED] Subfunction is functorial!!!! MphLee 14 1,113 06/06/2021, 11:16 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  On to C^\infty--and attempts at C^\infty hyper-operations JmsNxn 11 2,335 03/02/2021, 09:55 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Thoughts on hyper-operations of rational but non-integer orders? VSO 2 3,191 09/09/2019, 10:38 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Could there be an "arctic geometry" by raising the rank of all operations? Syzithryx 2 3,565 07/24/2019, 05:59 PM
Last Post: Syzithryx
  Hyper operators in computability theory JmsNxn 5 8,621 02/15/2017, 10:07 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Recursive formula generating bounded hyper-operators JmsNxn 0 2,941 01/17/2017, 05:10 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Rational operators (a {t} b); a,b > e solved JmsNxn 30 63,141 09/02/2016, 02:11 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  holomorphic binary operators over naturals; generalized hyper operators JmsNxn 15 26,189 08/22/2016, 12:19 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  The bounded analytic semiHyper-operators JmsNxn 2 6,261 05/27/2016, 04:03 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)