05/04/2014, 01:25 PM
Surely you are joking ?
Could be tetration if this integral converges
|
05/04/2014, 01:25 PM
Surely you are joking ?
05/04/2014, 03:28 PM
(05/04/2014, 11:50 AM)mike3 Wrote: WOW, this is easier than I thought...What are the values for F (0,1,2,3)? (05/04/2014, 02:18 AM)mike3 Wrote: So you mean "the inverse Mellin transform of the tetrational", right? Or do you mean of the reciprocal? Also, what do you mean by "Weyl differintegrable"? According to here: Sorry I should've mentioned that Weyl differintegrability is a different condition in the context I'm referring to. Weyl originally applied the operator on periodic functions but the general form of it applies on more functions than this. for (05/04/2014, 02:18 AM)mike3 Wrote:(05/03/2014, 06:12 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: However after seeing what you just posted I have to draw the same conclusion as you. I see what you're trying to do by making So that all we are doing is recovering This ensures recursion. It also expresses that we need a more complicated choice for Quote:Does the final tetration result not depend on the choice of YES it does not depend in every situation I've come across. By this I mean: if for Then So there are some strong results on uniqueness and it preserves a fair amount of data.
05/04/2014, 07:36 PM
I figure it's probably a good idea to post my paper now. I feel it's 90% there and it certainly is legible and will clarify what I am talking about much more. I can apply more powerful techniques than what's in the paper but nonetheless it still portrays what I am trying to do.
James Nixon's paper on fractional calculus. ![]()
05/04/2014, 07:44 PM
(05/04/2014, 07:36 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: I figure it's probably a good idea to post my paper now. I feel it's 90% there and it certainly is legible and will clarify what I am talking about much more. I can apply more powerful techniques than what's in the paper but nonetheless it still portrays what I am trying to do. I'll read it now ![]() ![]() MSE MphLee Mother Law \((\sigma+1)0=\sigma (\sigma+1)\) S Law \(\bigcirc_f^{\lambda}\square_f^{\lambda^+}(g)=\square_g^{\lambda}\bigcirc_g^{\lambda^+}(f)\)
As a note on a similar technique you are applying Mike but trying to keep the vibe much more fractional calculus'y (since it's what I am familiar with) We will try the following function:
We know that So that This function should be smaller then tetration at natural values. We would get the entire expression for Now F(z) will be susceptible to alot of the techniques I have in my belt involving fractional calculus. This Idea just popped into my head but I'm thinking working with a function like this will pull down the imaginary behaviour and pull down the real behaviour. We also note that (05/04/2014, 07:36 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: I figure it's probably a good idea to post my paper now. I feel it's 90% there and it certainly is legible and will clarify what I am talking about much more. I can apply more powerful techniques than what's in the paper but nonetheless it still portrays what I am trying to do. Amazing. I only saw the first bit of the paper, I'm really excited right now because it seems there's a simple integral-transform representation for the "Weyl differintegral". This is really really really really really interesting to me, because of ... dum dum dum ... the continuum sum! In particular, I am really interested in your Definition 3. How does that expression come from the original Weyl differintegral which was defined for Fourier series? I.e. how do you generalize the Fourier series definition to that definition? (05/04/2014, 10:42 PM)mike3 Wrote: Amazing. I only saw the first bit of the paper, I'm really excited right now because it seems there's a simple integral-transform representation for the "Weyl differintegral". This is really really really really really interesting to me, because of ... dum dum dum ... the continuum sum! Well Weyl defined the operator on periodic functions slightly differently but it's equivalent. I did not come up with definition 3. It's been long standing. It's also called the exponential differintegral, The Riemann liouville operator with lower limit negative infinity. Etc etc.. I am lacking proofs on convergence for the mellin transform of lots of interesting forms of functions. However, I have made progress on continuum sums. That is actually my next paper. Essentially I've shown that if i can generate an indefinite sum of I can't explain now but its all involving the weyl differintegral. (05/04/2014, 07:27 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: I see what you're trying to do by making However, Also, if it's not supposed to interpolate tetration, then what about just interpolating a sequence which grows as fast or faster than tetration but is not tetration? E.g. use the interpolation method I mentioned but with a different sequence, e.g. perhaps not tetration itself but something close to it, so that the function in the absolute value still behaves like an exponential or otherwise decays to 0. What about Also, with regards to the "bounded" approach, the given (05/04/2014, 07:27 PM)JmsNxn Wrote:Quote:Does the final tetration result not depend on the choice of Hmm.
05/05/2014, 01:00 AM
(05/04/2014, 03:28 PM)sheldonison Wrote:(05/04/2014, 11:50 AM)mike3 Wrote: WOW, this is easier than I thought...What are the values for F (0,1,2,3)? |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads… | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
Where is the proof of a generalized integral for integer heights? | Chenjesu | 2 | 5,353 |
03/03/2019, 08:55 AM Last Post: Chenjesu |
|
[integral] How to integrate a fourier series ? | tommy1729 | 1 | 5,538 |
05/04/2014, 03:19 PM Last Post: tommy1729 |
|
Some integral transforms related to tetration | JmsNxn | 0 | 3,740 |
05/02/2013, 07:54 PM Last Post: JmsNxn |
|
(draft) integral idea | tommy1729 | 0 | 4,470 |
06/25/2011, 10:17 PM Last Post: tommy1729 |
|
Cauchy integral also for b< e^(1/e)? | bo198214 | 14 | 26,300 |
04/24/2009, 05:29 PM Last Post: bo198214 |