Tetration

From HandWiki

In mathematics, tetration (or hyper-4) is an operation based on iterated, or repeated, exponentiation. There is no universal notation for tetration, though Knuth's up arrow notation and the left-exponent xb are common.

Under the definition as repeated exponentiation, na means aaa, where n copies of a are iterated via exponentiation, right-to-left, i.e. the application of exponentiation n1 times. The number n is called the height of the function, while a is called the base, analogous to exponentiation. It would be read as "the nth tetration of a". For example, 2 tetrated to 4 (or the fourth tetration of 2) is 42=2222=224=216=65536.

Tetration is the next hyperoperation after exponentiation, but before pentation. Along with the other hyperoperations, tetration is used for the notation of very large numbers. The name was coined by Reuben Goodstein from the prefix tetra- (meaning "four") and the word "iteration".

Tetration can also be defined recursively as

an:={1if n=0,aa(n1)if n>0.

This form allows for the extension of tetration to more general domains than the natural numbers such as real, complex, or ordinal numbers.

The two inverses of tetration are called super-root and super-logarithm. They are respectively analogous to the operations of taking nth roots and taking logarithms. None of the three functions are elementary.

Introduction

The first four hyperoperations are shown here, with tetration being considered the fourth in the series. The unary operation succession, defined as a=a+1, is considered to be the zeroth operation.

  1. Addition a+n=a+1+1++1n n copies of 1 added to a combined by succession.
  2. Multiplication a×n=a+a++an n copies of a combined by addition.
  3. Exponentiation an=a×a××an n copies of a combined by multiplication.
  4. Tetration na=aaan n copies of a combined by exponentiation, right-to-left.

Importantly, nested exponents are interpreted from the top down: abc means a(bc) and not (ab)c.

Succession, an+1=an+1, is the most basic operation; while addition (a+n) is a primary operation, for addition of natural numbers it can be thought of as a chained succession of n successors of a; multiplication (a×n) is also a primary operation, though for natural numbers it can analogously be thought of as a chained addition involving n numbers of a. Exponentiation can be thought of as a chained multiplication involving n numbers of a and tetration ( na) as a chained power involving n numbers a. Each of the operations above are defined by iterating the previous one;[1] however, unlike the operations before it, tetration is not an elementary function.

The parameter a is referred to as the base, while the parameter n may be referred to as the height. In the original definition of tetration, the height parameter must be a natural number; for instance, it would be illogical to say "three raised to itself negative five times" or "four raised to itself one half of a time." However, just as addition, multiplication, and exponentiation can be defined in ways that allow for extensions to real and complex numbers, several attempts have been made to generalize tetration to negative numbers, real numbers, and complex numbers. One such way for doing so is using a recursive definition for tetration; for any positive real a>0 and non-negative integer n0, we can define na recursively as:[1]

na:={1if n=0a((n1)a)if n>0

The recursive definition is equivalent to repeated exponentiation for natural heights; however, this definition allows for extensions to the other heights such as 0a, 1a, and ia as well – many of these extensions are areas of active research.

Terminology

There are many terms for tetration, each of which has some logic behind it, but some have not become commonly used for one reason or another. Here is a comparison of each term with its rationale and counter-rationale.

  • The term tetration, introduced by Goodstein in his 1947 paper Transfinite Ordinals in Recursive Number Theory[2] (generalizing the recursive base-representation used in Goodstein's theorem to use higher operations), has gained dominance. It was also popularized in Rudy Rucker's Infinity and the Mind.
  • The term superexponentiation was published by Bromer in his paper Superexponentiation in 1987.[3] It was used earlier by Ed Nelson in his book Predicative Arithmetic, Princeton University Press, 1986.
  • The term hyperpower[4] is a natural combination of hyper and power, which aptly describes tetration. The problem lies in the meaning of hyper with respect to the hyperoperation sequence. When considering hyperoperations, the term hyper refers to all ranks, and the term super refers to rank 4, or tetration. So under these considerations hyperpower is misleading, since it is only referring to tetration.
  • The term power tower[5] is occasionally used, in the form "the power tower of order n" for   aaan. Exponentiation is easily misconstrued: note that the operation of raising to a power is right-associative (see below). Tetration is iterated exponentiation (call this right-associative operation ^), starting from the top right side of the expression with an instance a^a (call this value c). Exponentiating the next leftward a (call this the 'next base' b), is to work leftward after obtaining the new value b^c. Working to the left, use the next a to the left, as the base b, and evaluate the new b^c. 'Descend down the tower' in turn, with the new value for c on the next downward step.

Owing in part to some shared terminology and similar notational symbolism, tetration is often confused with closely related functions and expressions. Here are a few related terms:

Terms related to tetration
Terminology Form
Tetration aaaa
Iterated exponentials aaax
Nested exponentials (also towers) a1a2an
Infinite exponentials (also towers) a1a2a3

In the first two expressions a is the base, and the number of times a appears is the height (add one for x). In the third expression, n is the height, but each of the bases is different.

Care must be taken when referring to iterated exponentials, as it is common to call expressions of this form iterated exponentiation, which is ambiguous, as this can either mean iterated powers or iterated exponentials.

Notation

There are many different notation styles that can be used to express tetration. Some notations can also be used to describe other hyperoperations, while some are limited to tetration and have no immediate extension.

Notation styles for tetration
Name Form Description
Knuth's up-arrow notation ana2n Allows extension by putting more arrows, or, even more powerfully, an indexed arrow.
Conway chained arrow notation an2 Allows extension by increasing the number 2 (equivalent with the extensions above), but also, even more powerfully, by extending the chain.
Ackermann function n2=A(4,n3)+3 Allows the special case a=2 to be written in terms of the Ackermann function.
Iterated exponential notation expan(1) Allows simple extension to iterated exponentials from initial values other than 1.
Hooshmand notations[6] uxpanan Used by M. H. Hooshmand [2006].
Hyperoperation notations a[4]nH4(a,n) Allows extension by increasing the number 4; this gives the family of hyperoperations.
Double caret notation a^^n Since the up-arrow is used identically to the caret (^), tetration may be written as (^^); convenient for ASCII.

One notation above uses iterated exponential notation; this is defined in general as follows:

expan(x)=aaax with n as.

There are not as many notations for iterated exponentials, but here are a few:

Notation styles for iterated exponentials
Name Form Description
Standard notation expan(x) Euler coined the notation expa(x)=ax, and iteration notation fn(x) has been around about as long.
Knuth's up-arrow notation (a2(x)) Allows for super-powers and super-exponential function by increasing the number of arrows; used in the article on large numbers.
Text notation exp_a^n(x) Based on standard notation; convenient for ASCII.
J notation x^^:(n-1)x Repeats the exponentiation. See J (programming language).[7]
Infinity barrier notation an|x Jonathan Bowers coined this,[8] and it can be extended to higher hyper-operations.

Examples

Because of the extremely fast growth of tetration, most values in the following table are too large to write in scientific notation. In these cases, iterated exponential notation is used to express them in base 10. The values containing a decimal point are approximate. Usually, the limit that can be calculated in a numerical calculation program such as Wolfram Alpha is 3↑↑4, and the number of digits up to 3↑↑5 can be expressed.

Examples of tetration
x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 4 (22) 16 (24) 65,536 (216) 2.00353 × 1019,728 (265,536) exp103(4.29508) (106.03123×1019,727) exp104(4.29508)
3 27 (33) 7,625,597,484,987

(327)

1.25801 × 103,638,334,640,024 (37,625,597,484,987) [9] exp104(1.09902)

(106.00225×103,638,334,640,023)

exp105(1.09902) exp106(1.09902)
4 256 (44) 1.34078 × 10154 (4256) exp103(2.18726) (2.3610×108.0723×10153) exp104(2.18726) exp105(2.18726) exp106(2.18726)
5 3,125 (55) 1.91101 × 102,184 (53,125) exp103(3.33928) (101.33574×102,184) exp104(3.33928) exp105(3.33928) exp106(3.33928)
6 46,656 (66) 2.65912 × 1036,305 (646,656) exp103(4.55997) (102.0692×1036,305) exp104(4.55997) exp105(4.55997) exp106(4.55997)
7 823,543 (77) 3.75982 × 10695,974 (7823,543) exp103(5.84259) (3.17742 × 10695,974 digits) exp104(5.84259) exp105(5.84259) exp106(5.84259)
8 16,777,216 (88) 6.01452 × 1015,151,335 exp103(7.18045) (5.43165 × 1015,151,335 digits) exp104(7.18045) exp105(7.18045) exp106(7.18045)
9 387,420,489 (99) 4.28125 × 10369,693,099 exp103(8.56784) (4.08535 × 10369,693,099 digits) exp104(8.56784) exp105(8.56784) exp106(8.56784)
10 10,000,000,000 (1010) 1010,000,000,000 exp104(1) (1010,000,000,000 + 1 digits) exp105(1) exp106(1) exp107(1)

Remark: If x does not differ from 10 by orders of magnitude, then for all k3,mx=exp10kz,z>1m+1x=exp10k+1z with zz. For example, zz<1.51015 for x=3=k,m=4 in the above table, and the difference is even smaller for the following rows.

Extensions

Tetration can be extended in two different ways; in the equation na, both the base a and the height n can be generalized using the definition and properties of tetration. Although the base and the height can be extended beyond the non-negative integers to different domains, including n0, complex functions such as ni, and heights of infinite n, the more limited properties of tetration reduce the ability to extend tetration.

Extension of domain for bases

Base zero

The exponential 00 is not consistently defined. Thus, the tetrations n0 are not clearly defined by the formula given earlier. However, limx0nx is well defined, and exists:[10]

limx0nx={1,n even0,n odd

Thus we could consistently define n0=limx0nx. This is analogous to defining 00=1.

Under this extension, 00=1, so the rule 0a=1 from the original definition still holds.

Complex bases

A colorful graph that shows the period getting much larger
Tetration by period
A colorful graph that shows the escape getting much larger
Tetration by escape

Since complex numbers can be raised to powers, tetration can be applied to bases of the form z = a + bi (where a and b are real). For example, in nz with z = i, tetration is achieved by using the principal branch of the natural logarithm; using Euler's formula we get the relation:

ia+bi=e12πi(a+bi)=e12πb(cosπa2+isinπa2)

This suggests a recursive definition for n+1i = a′ + b′i given any ni = a + bi:

a=e12πbcosπa2b=e12πbsinπa2

The following approximate values can be derived:

Values of tetration of complex bases
ni Approximate value
1i=i i
2i=i(1i) 0.2079
3i=i(2i) 0.9472 + 0.3208i
4i=i(3i) 0.0501 + 0.6021i
5i=i(4i) 0.3872 + 0.0305i
6i=i(5i) 0.7823 + 0.5446i
7i=i(6i) 0.1426 + 0.4005i
8i=i(7i) 0.5198 + 0.1184i
9i=i(8i) 0.5686 + 0.6051i

Solving the inverse relation, as in the previous section, yields the expected 0i = 1 and −1i = 0, with negative values of n giving infinite results on the imaginary axis. Plotted in the complex plane, the entire sequence spirals to the limit 0.4383 + 0.3606i, which could be interpreted as the value where n is infinite.


Extensions of the domain for different heights

Infinite heights

A line graph with a rapid curve upward as the base increases
limnnx of the infinitely iterated exponential converges for the bases (e1)exe(e1)
A three dimensional Cartesian graph with a point in the center
The function |W(lnz)lnz| on the complex plane, showing the real-valued infinitely iterated exponential function (black curve)

Tetration can be extended to infinite heights; i.e., for certain a and n values in na, there exists a well defined result for an infinite n. This is because for bases within a certain interval, tetration converges to a finite value as the height tends to infinity. For example, 222 converges to 2, and can therefore be said to be equal to 2. The trend towards 2 can be seen by evaluating a small finite tower:

222221.41422221.632221.76221.8421.891.93

In general, the infinitely iterated exponential xx, defined as the limit of nx as n goes to infinity, converges for eexe1/e, roughly the interval from 0.066[11] to 1.44,[12] a result shown by Leonhard Euler.[13] The limit, should it exist, is a positive real solution of the equation y = xy. Thus, x = y1/y. The limit defining the infinite exponential of x does not exist when x > e1/e because the maximum of y1/y is e1/e. The limit also fails to exist when 0 < x < ee.

This may be extended to complex numbers z with the definition:

z=zz=eW(lnz)=W(lnz)lnz,

where W represents Lambert's W function. This formula follows from the assumption that zz=a converges, and thus za=a, z=a1/a, 1/z=(1/a)1/a=2(1/a), and 1/a=ssrt(1/z)=eW(ln(1/z)) (see square super-root below).

As the limit y = x (if existent on the positive real line, i.e. for eexe1/e) must satisfy xy = y we see that xy = x is (the lower branch of) the inverse function of yx = y1/y.

Negative heights

We can reverse the recursive rule for tetration,

k+1a=a(ka),

to write:

ka=loga(k+1a).

Substituting −1 for k gives

1a=loga(0a)=loga1=0.[14]

Smaller negative values cannot be well defined in this way. Substituting −2 for k in the same equation gives

2a=loga(1a)=loga0=

which is not well defined. They can, however, sometimes be considered sets.[14]

For n=1, any definition of 11 is consistent with the rule because

01=1=1n for any n=11.

Linear approximation for real heights

A line graph with a figure drawn on it similar to an S-curve with values in the third quadrant going downward rapidly and values in the first quadrant going upward rapidly
xe using linear approximation

A linear approximation (solution to the continuity requirement, approximation to the differentiability requirement) is given by:

xa{loga(x+1a)x11+x1<x0a(x1a)0<x

hence:

Linear approximation values
Approximation Domain
xax+1 for −1 < x < 0
xaax for 0 < x < 1
xaaa(x1) for 1 < x < 2

and so on. However, it is only piecewise differentiable; at integer values of x, the derivative is multiplied by lna. It is continuously differentiable for x>2 if and only if a=e. For example, using these methods π2e5.868... and 4.30.54.03335...

A main theorem in Hooshmand's paper[6] states: Let 0<a1. If f:(2,+) is continuous and satisfies the conditions:

  • f(x)=af(x1)for allx>1,f(0)=1,
  • f is differentiable on (−1, 0),
  • f is a nondecreasing or nonincreasing function on (−1, 0),
  • f(0+)=(lna)f(0) or f(1+)=f(0).

then f is uniquely determined through the equation

f(x)=expa[x](a(x))=expa[x+1]((x))for allx>2,

where (x)=x[x] denotes the fractional part of x and expa[x] is the [x]-iterated function of the function expa.

The proof is that the second through fourth conditions trivially imply that f is a linear function on [−1, 0].

The linear approximation to natural tetration function xe is continuously differentiable, but its second derivative does not exist at integer values of its argument. Hooshmand derived another uniqueness theorem for it which states:

If f:(2,+) is a continuous function that satisfies:

  • f(x)=ef(x1)for allx>1,f(0)=1,
  • f is convex on (−1, 0),
  • f(0)f(0+).

then f=uxp. [Here f=uxp is Hooshmand's name for the linear approximation to the natural tetration function.]

The proof is much the same as before; the recursion equation ensures that f(1+)=f(0+), and then the convexity condition implies that f is linear on (−1, 0).

Therefore, the linear approximation to natural tetration is the only solution of the equation f(x)=ef(x1)(x>1) and f(0)=1 which is convex on (−1, +∞). All other sufficiently-differentiable solutions must have an inflection point on the interval (−1, 0).

Higher order approximations for real heights

A pair of line graphs, with one drawn in blue looking similar to a sine wave that has a decreasing amplitude as the values along the x-axis increase and the second is a red line that directly connects points along these curves with line segments
A comparison of the linear and quadratic approximations (in red and blue respectively) of the function x0.5, from x = −2 to x = 2

Beyond linear approximations, a quadratic approximation (to the differentiability requirement) is given by:

xa{loga(x+1a)x11+2ln(a)1+ln(a)x1ln(a)1+ln(a)x21<x0a(x1a)x>0

which is differentiable for all x>0, but not twice differentiable. For example, 1221.45933... If a=e this is the same as the linear approximation.[1]

Because of the way it is calculated, this function does not "cancel out", contrary to exponents, where (a1n)n=a. Namely,

n(1na)=(1na)(1na)(1na)na.

Just as there is a quadratic approximation, cubic approximations and methods for generalizing to approximations of degree n also exist, although they are much more unwieldy.[1][15]

Complex heights

A complex graph showing mushrooming values along the x-axis
Drawing of the analytic extension f=F(x+iy) of tetration to the complex plane. Levels |f|=1,e±1,e±2, and levels arg(f)=0,±1,±2, are shown with thick curves.

In 2017, it was proved[16] that there exists a unique function F satisfying F(z+1)=exp(F(z)) (equivalently F(z+1)=bF(z) when b=e), with the auxiliary conditions F(0)=1, and F(z)ξ± (the attracting/repelling fixed points of the logarithm, roughly 0.318±1.337i) as z±i. Moreover, F is holomorphic on all of except for the cut along the real axis at z2. This construction was first conjectured by Kouznetsov (2009)[17] and rigorously carried out by Kneser in 1950.[18] Paulsen & Cowgill’s proof extends Kneser’s original construction to any base b>e1/e1.445, and subsequent work showed how to allow b with |b|>e1/e.[19]

In May 2025, Vey gave a unified, holomorphic extension for arbitrary complex bases b{0,1} and complex heights z by means of Schröder’s equation. In particular, one constructs a linearizing coordinate near the attracting (or repelling) fixed point of the map f(w)=bw, and then patches together two analytic expansions (one around each fixed point) to produce a single function Fb(z) that satisfies Fb(z+1)=bFb(z) and Fb(0)=1 on all of . The key step is to define Φb(w)=limnsn(fn(w)α), where α is a fixed point of f(w)=bw, s=f(α), and fn denotes n-fold iteration. One then solves Schröder’s functional equation Φb(bw)=sΦb(w) locally (for w near α), extends both branches holomorphically, and glues them so that there is no monodromy except the known cut-lines. Vey also provides explicit series for the coefficients an(b) in the local Schröder expansion: Φb(w)=n=0an(b)(wα)n, and gives rigorous bounds proving factorial convergence of an(b).[20]

Using Kneser’s (and Vey’s) tetration, example values include π2e5.82366, 1221.45878, and 12e1.64635.

The requirement that tetration be holomorphic on all of (except for the known cuts) is essential for uniqueness. If one relaxes holomorphicity, there are infinitely many real‐analytic “solutions” obtained by pre‐ or post‐composing with almost‐periodic perturbations. For example, for any fast‐decaying real sequences {αn} and {βn}, one can set S(z)=Fb(z+n=1sin(2πnz)αn+n=1[1cos(2πnz)]βn), which still satisfies S(z+1)=bS(z) and S(0)=1, but has additional singularities creeping in from the imaginary direction.

<!-- Example of “calling” Vey’s solution in pseudocode (series form) -->
function ComplexTetration(b, z):
    # 1) Find attracting fixed point alpha of w ↦ b^w
    α ← the unique solution of α = b^α near the real line
    # 2) Compute multiplier s = b^α · ln(b)
    s ← b**α * log(b)
    # 3) Solve Schröder’s equation coefficients {a_n} around α:
    #    Φ_b(w) = ∑_{n=0}^∞ a_n · (w − α)^n,   Φ_b(b^w) = s · Φ_b(w)
    {a_n} ← SolveLinearSystemSchroeder(b, α, s)
    # 4) Define inverse φ_b⁻¹ via the local power series around 0
    φ_inv(u) = α + ∑_{n=1}^∞ c_n · u^n   # (coefficients c_n from series inversion)
    # 5) Put F_b(z) = φ_b⁻¹(s^(-z) · Φ_b(1))
    return φ_inv( s^(−z) * ∑_{n=0}^∞ a_n · (1 − α)^n )

Ordinal tetration

Tetration can be defined for ordinal numbers via transfinite induction. For all α and all β > 0: 0α=1 βα=sup({αγα:γ<β}).

Non-elementary recursiveness

Tetration (restricted to 2) is not an elementary recursive function. One can prove by induction that for every elementary recursive function f, there is a constant c such that

f(x)22xc.

We denote the right hand side by g(c,x). Suppose on the contrary that tetration is elementary recursive. g(x,x)+1 is also elementary recursive. By the above inequality, there is a constant c such that g(x,x)+1g(c,x). By letting x=c, we have that g(c,c)+1g(c,c), a contradiction.

Inverse operations

Exponentiation has two inverse operations; roots and logarithms. Analogously, the inverses of tetration are often called the super-root, and the super-logarithm (In fact, all hyperoperations greater than or equal to 3 have analogous inverses); e.g., in the function 3y=x, the two inverses are the cube super-root of y and the super-logarithm base y of x.

Super-root

The super-root is the inverse operation of tetration with respect to the base: if ny=x, then y is an nth super-root of x (xns or x4s).

For example,

42=2222=65,536

so 2 is the 4th super-root of 65,536 (65,5364s=2).

Square super-root

A curve that starts at (0,1), bends slightly to the right and then bends back dramatically to the left as the values along the x-axis increase
The graph y=xs

The 2nd-order super-root, square super-root, or super square root has two equivalent notations, ssrt(x) and xs. It is the inverse of 2x=xx and can be represented with the Lambert W function:[21]

ssrt(x)=exp(W(lnx))=lnxW(lnx) or
xs=eW(lnx)

The function also illustrates the reflective nature of the root and logarithm functions as the equation below only holds true when y=ssrt(x):

xy=logyx

Like square roots, the square super-root of x may not have a single solution. Unlike square roots, determining the number of square super-roots of x may be difficult. In general, if e1/e<x<1, then x has two positive square super-roots between 0 and 1 calculated using formulas:xs={eW1(lnx);eW0(lnx)}; and if x>1, then x has one positive square super-root greater than 1 calculated using formulas: xs=eW0(lnx). If x is positive and less than e1/e it does not have any real square super-roots, but the formula given above yields countably infinitely many complex ones for any finite x not equal to 1.[21] The function has been used to determine the size of data clusters.[22]

At x=1:

ssrt(x)=1+(x1)(x1)2+32(x1)3176(x1)4+376(x1)51759120(x1)6+13279360(x1)7+𝒪((x1)8)


Other super-roots

A line graph that starts at the origin and quickly makes an asymptote toward 2 as the value along the x-axis increases
The graph y=x3s

One of the simpler and faster formulas for a third-degree super-root is the recursive formula. If y=xxx then one can use:

  • x0=1
  • xn+1=exp(W(W(xnlny)))

This recursive formula makes use of the explicit representation of the square super-root via the Lambert W function given above, as we can represent y=xxx in the form of yx=(xx)(xx) and apply the square super-root twice: x=ssrt(ssrt(yx)).

For each integer n > 2, the function nx is defined and increasing for x ≥ 1, and n1 = 1, so that the nth super-root of x, xns, exists for x ≥ 1.

However, if the linear approximation above is used, then yx=y+1 if −1 < y ≤ 0, so yy+1s cannot exist.

In the same way as the square super-root, terminology for other super-roots can be based on the normal roots: "cube super-roots" can be expressed as x3s; the "4th super-root" can be expressed as x4s; and the "nth super-root" is xns. Note that xns may not be uniquely defined, because there may be more than one nth root. For example, x has a single (real) super-root if n is odd, and up to two if n is even. Just as with the extension of tetration to infinite heights, the super-root can be extended to n = ∞, being well-defined if 1/exe. Note that x=y=y[y]=yx, and thus that y=x1/x. Therefore, when it is well defined, xs=x1/x and, unlike normal tetration, is an elementary function. For example, 2s=21/2=2.

It follows from the Gelfond–Schneider theorem that super-root ns for any positive integer n is either integer or transcendental, and n3s is either integer or irrational.[23] It is still an open question whether irrational super-roots are transcendental in the latter case.

Super-logarithm

Once a continuous increasing (in x) definition of tetration, xa, is selected, the corresponding super-logarithm slogax or loga4x is defined for all real numbers x, and a > 1.

The function slogax satisfies:

slogaxa=xslogaax=1+slogaxslogax=1+slogalogaxslogax2

Open questions

Other than the problems with the extensions of tetration, there are several open questions concerning tetration, particularly when concerning the relations between number systems such as integers and irrational numbers:

  • It is not known whether there is an integer n4 for which nπ is an integer, because we could not calculate precisely enough the numbers of digits after the decimal points of π.[24][additional citation(s) needed] It is similar for ne for n5, as we are not aware of any other methods besides some direct computation. In fact, since log10(e)3e=1656520.36764, then 4e>2101656520. Given 3π<1.351018101656520 and π<e2, then 4π<ne for n5. It is believed that ne is not an integer for any positive integer n, due to the algebraic independence of e,2e,3e,, given Schanuel's conjecture.[25]
  • It is not known whether nq is rational for any positive integer n and positive non-integer rational q.[23] For example, it is not known whether the positive root of the equation 4x = 2 is a rational number. * It is not known whether eπ or πe (defined using Kneser's extension) are rationals or not.

Applications

For each graph H on h vertices and each ε > 0, define

D=25h4log(1/ε).

Then each graph G on n vertices with at most nh/D copies of H can be made H-free by removing at most εn2 edges.[26]

See also

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Neyrinck, Mark. An Investigation of Arithmetic Operations. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
  2. R. L. Goodstein (1947). "Transfinite ordinals in recursive number theory". Journal of Symbolic Logic 12 (4): 123–129. doi:10.2307/2266486. 
  3. N. Bromer (1987). "Superexponentiation". Mathematics Magazine 60 (3): 169–174. doi:10.1080/0025570X.1987.11977296. 
  4. J. F. MacDonnell (1989). "Somecritical points of the hyperpower function xx". International Journal of Mathematical Education 20 (2): 297–305. doi:10.1080/0020739890200210. http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/ther/tower.htm. 
  5. Weisstein, Eric W.. "Power Tower". http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PowerTower.html. 
  6. 6.0 6.1 "Ultra power and ultra exponential functions". Integral Transforms and Special Functions 17 (8): 549–558. 2006. doi:10.1080/10652460500422247. 
  7. "Power Verb". J Vocabulary. J Software. https://www.jsoftware.com/help/dictionary/d202n.htm. 
  8. "Spaces". http://www.polytope.net/hedrondude/spaces.htm. 
  9. DiModica, Thomas. Tetration Values. Retrieved 15 October 2023.
  10. "Climbing the ladder of hyper operators: tetration". https://math.blogoverflow.com/2015/01/05/climbing-the-ladder-of-hyper-operators-tetration/. 
  11. Template:Cite oeis
  12. Template:Cite oeis
  13. Euler, L. "De serie Lambertina Plurimisque eius insignibus proprietatibus." Acta Acad. Scient. Petropol. 2, 29–51, 1783. Reprinted in Euler, L. Opera Omnia, Series Prima, Vol. 6: Commentationes Algebraicae. Leipzig, Germany: Teubner, pp. 350–369, 1921. (facsimile)
  14. 14.0 14.1 Müller, M.. "Reihenalgebra: What comes beyond exponentiation?". http://www.mpmueller.net/reihenalgebra.pdf. 
  15. Andrew Robbins. Solving for the Analytic Piecewise Extension of Tetration and the Super-logarithm. The extensions are found in part two of the paper, "Beginning of Results".
  16. "Solving F(z+1)=bF(z) in the complex plane". Advances in Computational Mathematics 43: 1–22. March 2017. doi:10.1007/s10444-017-9524-1. http://myweb.astate.edu/wpaulsen/tetration2.pdf. 
  17. "Solution of F(z+1)=exp(F(z)) in complex z-plane". Mathematics of Computation 78 (267): 1647–1670. July 2009. doi:10.1090/S0025-5718-09-02188-7. https://www.ams.org/mcom/2009-78-267/S0025-5718-09-02188-7/S0025-5718-09-02188-7.pdf. 
  18. "Reelle analytische Lösungen der Gleichung φ(φ(x))=ex und verwandter Funktionalgleichungen" (in de). Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 187: 56–67. 1950. 
  19. "Tetration for complex bases". Advances in Computational Mathematics 45: 243–267. June 2018. doi:10.1007/s10444-018-9615-7. 
  20. "Holomorphic Extension of Tetration to Complex Bases and Heights via Schröder’s Equation". May 2025. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10348.48008. 
  21. 21.0 21.1 Corless, R. M.; Gonnet, G. H.; Hare, D. E. G.; Jeffrey, D. J.; Knuth, D. E. (1996). "On the Lambert W function" (PostScript). Advances in Computational Mathematics 5: 333. doi:10.1007/BF02124750. http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/~rcorless/frames/PAPERS/LambertW/LambertW.ps. 
  22. Krishnam, R. (2004), "Efficient Self-Organization Of Large Wireless Sensor Networks" – Dissertation, BOSTON UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING. pp. 37–40
  23. 23.0 23.1 Marshall, Ash J., and Tan, Yiren, "A rational number of the form aa with a irrational", Mathematical Gazette 96, March 2012, pp. 106–109.
  24. Bischoff, Manon (24 January 2024). "A Wild Claim about the Powers of Pi Creates a Transcendental Mystery" (in en). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-wild-claim-about-the-powers-of-pi-creates-a-transcendental-mystery/. 
  25. Cheng, Chuangxun; Dietel, Brian; Herblot, Mathilde; Huang, Jingjing; Krieger, Holly; Marques, Diego; Mason, Jonathan; Mereb, Martin et al. (2009). "Some consequences of Schanuel's conjecture". Journal of Number Theory 129 (6): 1464–1467. doi:10.1016/j.jnt.2008.10.018. 
  26. Jacob Fox, A new proof of the graph removal lemma, arXiv preprint (2010). arXiv:1006.1300 [math.CO]

Further reading