Posts: 1,214
Threads: 126
Joined: Dec 2010
I hate to be a noob, but am I allowed to conclude that since \( sexp(-2) = ln(0) = -\infty \) that tetration has poles at all negative integers excluding -1?
I think I am, but some part of me is hesitant, I'm wondering if some people argue that the log law breaks down after zero. (Though I think that would be pretty stupid.)
Posts: 1,924
Threads: 415
Joined: Feb 2009
you meant log singularities instead of poles ? i hope
what do you mean by " break down ".
sounds like a shrink term rather than math to me
then again , tetration can drive you crazy.
Posts: 1,214
Threads: 126
Joined: Dec 2010
(04/17/2011, 05:49 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: what do you mean by " break down ".
Yeah, I thought that sounded kind of dumb.
And yes I meant log singularities.
Posts: 368
Threads: 44
Joined: Sep 2009
04/17/2011, 07:25 PM
(This post was last modified: 04/17/2011, 07:25 PM by mike3.)
(04/17/2011, 05:06 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: I hate to be a noob, but am I allowed to conclude that since \( sexp(-2) = ln(0) = -\infty \) that tetration has poles at all negative integers excluding -1?
I think I am, but some part of me is hesitant, I'm wondering if some people argue that the log law breaks down after zero. (Though I think that would be pretty stupid.)
You would be right in concluding there are
singularities, but they're not poles -- they are \( \log^n \) singularities, i.e. the first is a logarithmic singularity, the second is a "double-logarithmic" singularity, and so on. In the complex numbers, \( \mathrm{tet}(z) \) is a "multi-valued function" (this term should really be something like multi-valued relation, but this misnomer is so ingrained in tradition it's not funny), like \( \log \) itself.
Posts: 1,214
Threads: 126
Joined: Dec 2010
(04/17/2011, 07:25 PM)mike3 Wrote: (04/17/2011, 05:06 PM)JmsNxn Wrote: I hate to be a noob, but am I allowed to conclude that since \( sexp(-2) = ln(0) = -\infty \) that tetration has poles at all negative integers excluding -1?
I think I am, but some part of me is hesitant, I'm wondering if some people argue that the log law breaks down after zero. (Though I think that would be pretty stupid.)
You would be right in concluding there are singularities, but they're not poles -- they are \( \log^n \) singularities, i.e. the first is a logarithmic singularity, the second is a "double-logarithmic" singularity, and so on. In the complex numbers, \( \mathrm{tet}(z) \) is a "multi-valued function" (this term should really be something like multi-valued relation, but this misnomer is so ingrained in tradition it's not funny), like \( \log \) itself.
Okay, alright I'll make sure to not call them poles.
