Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- From: theronruiz@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:22:10 -0700
On Sep 17, 6:12 pm, theronr...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 17, 10:12 am, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I dug up an interesting thread here where a method was given that
might be able to extend
tetration to the reals, at least for a base of sqrt(2). You can see
the thread at this link:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/39a7019f905...
The proposed method in this thread is flawed. The generated "curve"
has branches, so it is not a function. This is easily observable in hi-
res plot of the "curve".
This proves experimentally that there is no function f: (-2; +oo) -> R
such that:
f(x) = y <=> f(-y) = -x (1)
f(x + 1) = sqrt(2)^f(x) (2)
f(0) = 1 (3)
After rethinking I think that the above statement is a bit
speculative. However I'm sure that there is no continuous f: (-2; +oo)
-> R that satisfies (1), (2) and (3). Here is why:
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/1466/sqrttetrxjx1.png
This is a 5000x5000 plot of f(x) for -1 <= x <= 0 <= y <= 1.
Theron
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- From: mike3
- Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- References:
- Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- From: theronruiz
- Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- Prev by Date: Re: It is irrational to put rational and irrational numbers on the same lin
- Next by Date: generalized Lusin type thereom
- Previous by thread: Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- Next by thread: Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|