Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension
#6
jaydfox Wrote:I already have code in place to remove the "correct" singularity, and I could just modify it to instead introduce a false set of coefficients for k>n, and see what happens. As I think more about what a partial series (only terms k>n) of a singularity would look like as a function, i.e., an increasingly insignificant singularity, I'm actually going to guess that the solution will still converge on the correct one, even if only very, very slowly. (And convergence with v_k=0, k>n, is already very slow.)

Hmm, just thinking about practicalities, however, the root test of any false function must be less than 1, as is trivially obvious from the first row, but also from the fact that we're solving across an interval (0,1), so we need a root test at most 1 to reach the end of the interval. But I can try introducing false singularities just outside this radius and see what happens. I'll start with Henryk's suggestion, then try a singularity outside the correct radius of convergence, then one at the radius but at the wrong location, then one inside the correct radius (if there's even a need to go that far).


Update: I'm going to further venture to hypothesize that any series we use for k>n must have a radius of convergence greater than that of the true singularity. If it has the same radius of convergence, then that power series must converge on the location(s) of the true singularity(ies), perhaps even the form of the singularity as well (e.g., logarithmic versus simple pole).

I came to this idea as I was thinking about cyclic alterations of the correct series (e.g., \( G(z) = F(z) + \frac{\sin\left(2\pi F(z)\right)}{200\pi} \)). They should satisfy the Abel equation, and hence I wouldn't expect the series as n grows to change from that series to the correct one, because as n grows, we can just plug in the modified series and get a solution, and the finite matrices should have unique solutions.

On the other hand, for any singularity outside the radius of convergence, as n grows the terms would eventually become too small relative to the terms of the correct sequence, and hence they would become increasingly irrelevant. Therefore, I would still expect the series to converge on the correct sequence in those cases.
~ Jay Daniel Fox
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension - by bo198214 - 08/07/2007, 04:38 PM
RE: Andrew Robbins' Tetration Extension - by jaydfox - 11/06/2007, 04:27 AM

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 24,980 09/18/2022, 09:37 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  On extension to "other" iteration roots Leo.W 34 38,587 08/30/2022, 03:29 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Tetration extension for bases between 1 and eta dantheman163 23 65,450 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 8,315 05/08/2022, 11:48 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Possible continuous extension of tetration to the reals Dasedes 0 5,870 10/10/2016, 04:57 AM
Last Post: Dasedes



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)