Proof Ackermann function cannot have an analytic identity function
Well I've been having suspicions for quite a while that the Ackermann function cannot be analytic. I was having trouble visualizing it and then one step to the answer came to me through the identity function. It's actually incredibly simple the formulas involved. It's a proof by contradiction.

First, we start off by defining what we mean by the "Ackermann function", so as not to cause any confusion.


and if


is the identity function

we set:

so that

and we make the final two requirements:

so that we have as multiplication and as exponentiation so on and so forth.


or is the "logarithmic" inverse operator of order

must be analytic across

is analytic across at all values of b if and only if our identity function () is analytic.

We will work to prove that cannot be analytic by at all values of b.

So we come to the weaker conclusion than the Ackermann function cannot be analytic across all values, to the "logarithmic" Ackermann function cannot be analytic across all values.

or the series

cannot be analytic if it holds the property:

Firstly, we make the argument that cannot be periodic if we want it to be analytic.

Or simply put if:

this is instantly invalid for and and an analytic periodic function must be periodic for all values, however, we do have it to be true for integer values of greater than 1.

Now we write,

since and since , must oscillate similarly to a periodic function only it is not periodic since if it was periodic and analytic therefore we designate it cannot be analytic and periodic.

So let us write what I call the "pseudo period" as

evidently is multivalued and not analytic and does not always return values.

for example does not necessarily exist, because it is fully possible that

however, it is evident that must exist for some values of in order that be analytic.

it is trivial that

Now we must derive a few lemmas


by the first axiom it's easy to deduce:

continuing this process again we get:

this is how we get the famed identity

Now we move on to the "logarithmic" inverse function and defining a new function I call Q.

it's obvious that

which is a simple exercise in super operators


before continuing we need to acknowledge that

which is again a simple exercise.

now we have to make some odd observations that may get confusing

from the "logarithmic" inverse law

this implies:

which in turn gives


by the identity

but we also know by Q's definition

so that

we know that from earlier

so that we get

but we also know, by the definition of the "logarithmic" inverse:

so therefore

which since


we get the beautiful result:

which is the core identity of our proof

since is multivalued, we find that

for some value



which in turn applies

which iterated gives

or that is periodic. However we already noted that if is periodic then cannot be analytic since by definition of an analytic function that is periodic it must be periodic over every value in the domain and


is not analytic by for all values of b


is not analytic by


This puts me one step closer to proving non analycity across for some value of a and b in the Ackermann function

Personally I think that non-analycity is intuitively implied since is not primitive recursive, but this is yet to be rigorously decided. To disprove universal analycity, it suffices to show that for some fixed , is not analytic across .

I understand the notation in this proof maybe a bit confusing, but when working with three variables I think that's inevitable.

any questions, comments?

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  [Question for Bo] about formal Ackermann laws MphLee 3 137 11/30/2022, 01:48 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Is successor function analytic? Daniel 6 324 11/28/2022, 12:03 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Ackermann fixed points Daniel 0 156 09/18/2022, 03:13 PM
Last Post: Daniel
  The bounded analytic semiHyper-operators JmsNxn 4 8,260 06/29/2022, 11:46 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Bounded Analytic Hyper operators JmsNxn 25 45,327 04/01/2015, 06:09 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Proof Ackermann function extended to reals cannot be commutative/associative JmsNxn 1 5,887 06/15/2013, 08:02 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  generalizing the problem of fractional analytic Ackermann functions JmsNxn 17 41,161 11/24/2011, 01:18 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  extension of the Ackermann function to operators less than addition JmsNxn 2 7,660 11/06/2011, 08:06 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Ackermann function and hyper operations andydude 3 11,606 04/18/2011, 05:08 PM
Last Post: bo198214
  A specific value of the Ackermann function tetrator 12 23,871 11/02/2008, 02:47 PM
Last Post: Finitist

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)