Let $z \in \mathbb{C}.$ Let $t = W(-\ln z)$ where $W$ is the Lambert W Function. Define the sequence $a_n$ by $a_0 = z$ and $a_{n+1} = z^{a_n}$ for $n \geq 1$, that is to say $a_n$ is the sequence $z, z^z, z^{z^z} ...$ This is sometimes called the iterated exponential with base $z$.

Here I am trying to prove (or disprove) $2$ things:

  1. For every $x \in \mathbb{R}$ there is $y^\star \in [0,\infty)$ such that for any $y \in \mathbb{R}$ with $|y| > y^\star$ the iterated exponential with base $z = x+ yi$ converges to a set of $3$ periodic accumulation points. As $|y| \to \infty$ the $3$ points approach the orbit $\lbrace 0, 1, z \rbrace$

  2. Let $E = (e^{1/e} , \infty) \cup \lbrace s \in \mathbb{C}:|t| = |W(-\ln s)| = 1 $ and $t^n \ne 1$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N} \rbrace$ If $z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus E$, the iterated exponential is bounded and there exists $k \in \mathbb{N}$ such that the iterated exponential converges to a set of $k$ periodic accumulation points.

I have been studying Daniel Geisler's tetration map; my first question is essentially a formalization of some observations I have made. My second question has proven to be more problematic. I have been experimenting numerically for several years, and I have observed that an iterated exponential sometimes gets "slingshot" to a neighborhood of $\infty$. When this happens it can be very difficult to tell what the next terms will be.

The main thing I have tried in these situations is a kind of asymptotic analysis. The next term $a_{n+1}$ is considered as the product $z^{\Re(a_n)}(z^i)^{\Im(a_n)}$. There are $36$ possibilities determined by the signs of $\Re(a_n), \Im(a_n)$ and whether $|z|, |z^i|$ are greater than, less than, or equal to $1$. Typically, though each factor is either $0, \infty,$ or else it just keeps going around the unit circle and doesn't approach any fixed value. So there are really only $3$ possibilities: $0, \infty, 0\cdot\infty$.

If I'm "lucky" enough to get $a_{n+1} \sim 0$, I can easily see that the "slingshot to $\infty$" is followed by (approximately) $\lbrace 0, 1, z, z^z, \ldots \rbrace$ Otherwise I get stuck in limbo: it may be that the entire sequence is diverging to $\infty$. However, I have never been able to find specific examples of this, other than $(e^{1/e} , \infty)$. If I get $a_{n+1}\sim \infty$ this basically puts me back at square one; I can ask the same question about $a_{n+2}$, namely, is it $0, \infty$, or something else. So, in most (if not all) cases, I feel I have to explicitly calculate the next terms; otherwise I have no way of knowing if the whole sequence diverges to $\infty$, or if some subsequent term is very close to $0$.

Another major problem is that the next term often is so big that it causes an overflow error on my calculator. I have tried calculating the natural logs of the terms, using the iteration $b_0 = \ln z, b_{n+1} = e^{b_n}\ln z$, but sometimes it doesn't help, because I still get overflow errors. An example of this is $z = -2.5.$ After just 6 terms $a_n$ is on the order of $10^{26649}$ and $b_n$ has an almost identical value after 7 terms.

Note: all of my work so far assumes the use of the principal branches of the natural log and the Lambert W function.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just one question: "in case 3b (...) has period k for some $k \in \mathbb N$" - do you really mean "periodic" and thus a set of k periodic accumulation points to which the iteration converges? Please pardon, if I'm messing some things up? $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Jun 11 '16 at 3:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms Yes, that is what I mean. I'm the one who should be apologizing, because I wasn't exactly sure how to say that, so instead I said something which apparently caused some confusion. $\endgroup$ – cpiegore Jun 11 '16 at 3:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GottfriedHelms I would also like to point out that I am purposefully omitting case 3b from consideration, because in my opinion it is the most "troublesome" of the 4 cases. $\endgroup$ – cpiegore Jun 11 '16 at 3:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ you didn't talk so much of the different branches of $\log(z)$ and $W(z)$, and how changing of branch of $\log$ during the iteration $a_{n+1} = z^{a_n} = e^{a_n \log(z)}$ affects the result. and how do you prove $3a$ ? $\endgroup$ – reuns Jun 11 '16 at 5:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user1952009 First, I am assuming that any work done on this is made using the principal branch of the natural log. This is because, as far as I can tell, the orbits produced by the principal log are the most studied and most well understood. Also, the other branches of $W(z)$ appear to have no relationship to the iterated exponential. When defining $a_n$ using different branches of the log, I have found there are 2 different ways to do this, which lead to completely different results. $\endgroup$ – cpiegore Jun 11 '16 at 14:54

This is an attempt at proving statement 1. Showing that the conclusion holds for any $y \in \mathbb{R}$ with $|y| > y^\star$ basically boils down to proving $\lim\limits_{|y| \to \infty}(x+yi)^{x+yi} = 0$ for fixed $x$. Without loss of generality we may assume $y >0$ since $\bar z^{\bar z} = \overline{z^z}$. We may also ignore the argument of $(x+yi)^{x+yi}$ and show that $|(x+yi)^{x+yi}| \to 0$

$|(x+yi)^{x+yi}| = (x^2+y^2)^{x/2}e^{y\arctan(x/y)-y\pi/2}$. Since $x$ is fixed $(x^2+y^2)^{x/2} \sim y^{x}$ and since $y\arctan(x/y) \to x$, as $y \to \infty$ we have $e^{y\arctan(x/y)-y\pi/2} \sim e^{-y} \implies (x+yi)^{x+yi} \sim y^{x}e^{-y} \to 0$ since $e^{-y} \to 0$ way faster than $y^{x} \to \infty$.

I am still not sure how to show there is a smallest value $y^\star$ for which the conclusion is true. Nor do I know of a formula, or even an algorithm, to find it, other than a lot of numerical experimentation.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Shouldn't it be $(x^2+y^2)^{x/2} \sim y^{\color{red}{x}}$? $\endgroup$ – celtschk Jun 19 '16 at 4:24
  • $\begingroup$ No because $x$ is fixed, ie, $x$ is a constant with respect to $y$, ie, I am only taking the limit with respect to $y$ $\endgroup$ – cpiegore Jun 19 '16 at 4:51
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I admit I am not perfect. I may have misunderstood the use of the tilde symbol. $\endgroup$ – cpiegore Jun 19 '16 at 4:55
  • $\begingroup$ Actually it should be $(x^2+y^2)^{x/2} \sim y^{x/2}$, but the limit is still $0$ since $e^y$ grows faster than any power of $y$ $\endgroup$ – cpiegore Jun 19 '16 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ Why $x/2$? As far as I can tell, $(y^2)^{x/2} = y^x$. Am I missing something? But of course the limit is still $0$ that way. $\endgroup$ – celtschk Jun 19 '16 at 5:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.