Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension
#28
(08/23/2009, 02:45 PM)tommy1729 Wrote:
bo198214 Wrote:For \( k\ge 1 \) the constant -1 vanishes and we make the following calculations:
\( s^{(k)}(x)=(t(b^x))^{(k)}=\left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty \nu_i \frac{b^{xi}}{i!}\right)^{(k)}=\sum_{i=0}^\infty\frac{\nu_i}{i!}(b^{xi})^{(k)} \)
The derivation of \( b^{xi} \) is easily determined to be
\( (b^{xi})'=b^{xi}\text{ln}(b) i \) and so the k-th derivative is \( (b^{xi})^{(k)} = b^{xi}(\text{ln}(b)i)^k \), which give us in turn
\( \nu_k=s(x)^{(k)}= \text{ln}(b)^k\sum_{i=0}^\infty\nu_i\frac{i^k}{i!} \) for \( k\ge 1 \).
notice in the last line bo wrote s(x) instead of s(0).

which is obviously a misprint. The corresponding equation system for arbitrary \( x_0 \) is:

\( \nu_k(x_0)=s^{(k)}(x_0)= \text{ln}(b)^k\sum_{i=0}^\infty\nu_i \cdot \frac{ b^{x_0 i}\cdot i^k}{i!} \) for \( k\ge 1 \).

Quote:it is an expansion at x = 0.
now if we consider expansions at both x = 0 and x = 1 and get the same coefficients for x = 0 by computing them from
1) the coefficients expanded at x = 1
2) solving the modified equation ( see below)

I doubt this. I guess we get different superlogarithms for different development points \( x_0 \). One should perhaps check this with a complex plot.
I further guess that for \( x_0 \) converging to the lower fixed point, the solution converges to the regular tetration.
And 3. I guess that Andrew's slog corresponds to the inverse of the matrix power sexp (which also depends on a development point).

Quote:since b^1 i = b^i , we get an extra b^i factor on the right side.
*nods*

Quote:and v_k is replaced by sum v_k / k!

If you have a function f(x) with powerseries coefficients \( v_k \) at 0 then f(x+d) has the powerseries development coefficients v_k(d) (provided that f has convergence radius >d at 0):
\( v_k(d) = \sum_{n=k}^\infty \left(n\\k\right) d^{n-k} v_n \) and vice versa \( v_k = \sum_{n=k}^\infty \left(n\\k\right) (-d)^{n-k} v_n(d) \).

Quote:bo mentioned the potential non-uniqueness for v_k when expanded at x = 0.
maybe this could be the extra condition we(?) are looking for.

The demand that the solution at different development points should give the same function does not determine how to solve the equation system in a different way. If you mean that.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension - by bo198214 - 08/07/2007, 04:38 PM
RE: Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension - by bo198214 - 08/23/2009, 03:23 PM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  my proposed extension of the fast growing hierarchy to real numbers Alex Zuma 2025 0 1,322 09/28/2025, 07:15 PM
Last Post: Alex Zuma 2025
  possible tetration extension part 1 Shanghai46 6 9,416 10/31/2022, 09:45 AM
Last Post: Catullus
  possible tetration extension part 3 Shanghai46 11 14,844 10/28/2022, 07:11 PM
Last Post: bo198214
  possible tetration extension part 2 Shanghai46 8 10,177 10/18/2022, 09:14 AM
Last Post: Daniel
  Qs on extension of continuous iterations from analytic functs to non-analytic Leo.W 18 24,983 09/18/2022, 09:37 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  On extension to "other" iteration roots Leo.W 34 38,589 08/30/2022, 03:29 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Tetration extension for bases between 1 and eta dantheman163 23 65,452 07/05/2022, 04:10 PM
Last Post: Leo.W
  Non-trivial extension of max(n,1)-1 to the reals and its iteration. MphLee 9 21,464 06/15/2022, 10:59 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Ueda - Extension of tetration to real and complex heights MphLee 4 8,316 05/08/2022, 11:48 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Possible continuous extension of tetration to the reals Dasedes 0 5,871 10/10/2016, 04:57 AM
Last Post: Dasedes



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)