01/17/2011, 11:36 PM
thanks for your reply sheldon.
in fact my method is intended for the real line.
for the complex plane it will not work * in its limit form *.
i fact , i wont converge for most nonreal numbers * in its limit form *.
( fixpoints L and L* will work )
to sketch some of the reasons , apart from yours ,
exp exp exp ... exp(z) does not converge for the neighbourhood of any nonreal z.
the identity like functions that commutes with * the limit form * is
id(x) = log log ... id( exp exp ... )
however
x = log log exp exp (x)
but this does not hold for complex z
z =/= log log exp exp (z)
which has ofcourse great consequences ( again for the limit form ! )
i dont have much time , but i think i made some ideas clear.
although slightly on different paths , i think our ideas will merge.
i think i can show that my limit form can be transformed to work for all of z.
later when i have more time.
i had some intuition about those singularities , so it doesnt surprise me.
on the other hand , we might be able to learn more about them , and i thank sheldon for the post and pics.
regards
tommy1729
ps : im still thinking about the base change too , despite not personally appealing to me and ( imho ? ) missing important properties ...[/font]
in fact my method is intended for the real line.
for the complex plane it will not work * in its limit form *.
i fact , i wont converge for most nonreal numbers * in its limit form *.
( fixpoints L and L* will work )
to sketch some of the reasons , apart from yours ,
exp exp exp ... exp(z) does not converge for the neighbourhood of any nonreal z.
the identity like functions that commutes with * the limit form * is
id(x) = log log ... id( exp exp ... )
however
x = log log exp exp (x)
but this does not hold for complex z
z =/= log log exp exp (z)
which has ofcourse great consequences ( again for the limit form ! )
i dont have much time , but i think i made some ideas clear.
although slightly on different paths , i think our ideas will merge.
i think i can show that my limit form can be transformed to work for all of z.
later when i have more time.
i had some intuition about those singularities , so it doesnt surprise me.
on the other hand , we might be able to learn more about them , and i thank sheldon for the post and pics.
regards
tommy1729
ps : im still thinking about the base change too , despite not personally appealing to me and ( imho ? ) missing important properties ...[/font]

