Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?

On Sep 20, 8:35 pm, mike3 <mike4...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Interesting. How smooth is the curve one gets,
when one uses a base of, say, 2? What would
a graph of the tetrational function to the base 2,
with a tetrapower from 0 to 3? Could you show
me a graph? Does the points appear to be outlining
a smooth curve?

Unfortunately, as interesting as this may seem, I know
for a fact that it's _not_ outlining a smooth curve. Indeed,
no tetration function with defines (x^^(1/n))^^n = x (i.e.
that uses tetraroots) can ever be smooth!

Why not? Consider the values:

2^^(1/2), 2^^(1/3), 2^^(1/4), ... 2^^(1/n), ...

defined as the second, third, fourth, ... nth, ... tetraroots
of two. Now what is the limit as n -> infinity? We know
that it must converge to the _infinite_ tetraroot of two,
which is sqrt(2) since sqrt(2)^^(infinity)=2.

But limit as n -> infinity of 1/n is zero, so 2^^(1/n) ought
to approach 2^^0 = 1 as n -> infinity. And thus we must
conclude that the function isn't even _continuous_ at
zero, much less differentiable. And because zero is our
base case for extending tetration to all positive rationals,
we conclude that the function isn't continuous at _any_
of the rationals! (Notice that, unlike Theron's graph in
the other subthread, this function is at least _defined_
for all positive rationals, a countable dense subset.)

This is actually a grave problem indeed. Suppose we
were to use Nelson's superlog (tetralog) algorithm to
find the base-2 tetralog of 3 (so x =3, y = 2). (In the
following, p(x,y) is the base-y tetralog of x and f(x,y)
is the base-y log of x.)

p[x_,y_] :=1+ p[f[x,y],y] /; x >= y

So p(3,2) = 1+p(log(3)/log(2),2)
= 1+p(1.5849625,2)

p[x_,y_] :=1/p[y,x] /; x < y

= 1+1/p(2,1.5849625)
= 1+1/(1+p(1.505007,1.5849625))
= 1+1/(1+1/p(1.5849625,1.505007))
= 1+1/(1+1/(1+p(1.122662, 1.505007)))
= 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/p(1.505007, 1.122662)))

And here's where we get into trouble. For it's
impossible to find p(1.505007,1.122662), which
is the base-1.122662 tetralog of 1.505007, because
1.122662^^(infinity) is only 1.14647, so 1.505007 is
far above the horizontal asymptote. Indeed, if we
attempted to continue the algorithm anyway:

= 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(1+p(3.428802, 1.122662))))
= 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(2+p(10.3352, 1.122662))))
= 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(3+p(19.58955, 1.122662))))
= 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(4+p(24.95287, 1.122662))))
....
= 1+1/(1+1/(1+1/(16+p(27.9271, 1.122662))))
....

and the x-values converge to 27.9271, when the
algorithm needs it either to reach a base case of zero
or one, or at least drop below y so that we can switch
the values of x and y.

And this happens for almost _every_ value of x and y --
we eventually reach a case where the tetration of y has
an asymptote and x is greater than the asymptote. The
only values for which the algorithm actually works for
base two are hand-picked values such as 0, 1, 2, 4, 16,
65536, 1.55961 (second tetraroot of two), 2^1.55961, etc.

So as promising as this idea may seem, defining
x^^(1/n) as a tetraroot will never give a function that will
be continous. This is why Gottried Helms's (and others')
functions disagree with the tetraroot -- x^^(1/n) must
be less than the nth tetraroot for sufficiently large n in
order for the function to be continous at zero.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
    ... a graph of the tetrational function to the base 2, ... that it must converge to the _infinite_ tetraroot of two, ... base case for extending tetration to all positive rationals, ... were to use Nelson's superlog algorithm to ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Bringing back an old tetration curiosity?
    ... of approximation error, for example, though. ... The branching doesn't look to me as a side effect of possible rounding ... then plots all the iterates on the graph. ... This would suggest then that the tetrational function is _close_ to ...
    (sci.math)
Loading