Can the logic of $\sqrt[n]x = x^{1/n}$ be applied to tetration and other natural numbered hyperoperations greater than exponentiation, or, do reciprocals of positive integers as the second argument of a hyperoperation greater than exponentiation always equate to the root analog of that operation? Is there a general proof of this?

An example of what I mean is x tetrated to the one half and the super-square root of x being the same value, then extended to all positive integer denominators and all hyperoperations above exponentiation.

  • Your phrase "the logic of" is a bit vague. Can you please clarify? – Adrian Keister May 17 at 14:31
  • Welcome to MSE. Please read this text about how to ask a good question. – José Carlos Santos May 17 at 14:40
  • I don't see why not. Just define it that way. However, I'm not certain it's all that useful. – Arthur May 17 at 14:56
up vote 0 down vote accepted

No. The reason why $\sqrt[n]x = x^{1/n}$ is because $(x^a)^b = x^{ab}$, so assuming $x \in (0,\infty)$ we would have $(\sqrt[n]x)^n = x = x^{n/n} = (x^{1/n})^n$, which implies $\sqrt[n]x = x^{1/n}$. There is no similar identity for hyperoperations.

For example, let's look at tetration. There is no standard definition of ${^b}a = a^{a^{{...}^a}}$ with height $b$ for noninteger $b$, so the expression ${^{1/b}}a$ is not well-defined without a continuous interpolation of some kind. One could imagine defining ${^{1/b} a}$ to be the solution to ${^b}x = a$. However, there's no reasoning to justify this definition, because unlike exponentiation, tetration does not satisfy ${^{bc}}a = {^b}({^c}a)$. Why not? Well let's just look at an example with $a = b = 2$ and $c = 3$. Then ${^{2\cdot 3}2 = 2^{2^{2^{2^{2^2}}}}} \ne {^2}({^3}2) = {^2}(2^{2^2}) = 16^{16}$. Thus the reasoning behind $\sqrt[n]x = x^{1/n}$ doesn't apply to tetration. You might define ${^{1/b}}x$ to be the inverse of ${^b}x$, but this definition will break down once you try extending to noninteger $b$. To take your logic a bit farther, suppose we define $^{1/n}x$ as the inverse function of ${^n}x$ and then define $^{m/n}x = {^{1/n}}({^m}x)$. This actually not even well defined: By our working definition, ${^{1/2} 4} = 2$, because ${^2}2 = 2^2 = 4$. But also by our definition this should be the same as ${^{2/4} 4} = {^{1/4}}({^2}4) = {^{1/4}}(4^4) = {^{1/4}}256$, i.e. the solution to $x^{x^{x^x}} = 256$, which numerically comes out to be about $x = 1.8973...$, clearly not equal to $2$.

We can define $n-$fold tetration as $f(x,n)=x^{x^{x^{\ldots x}}}$ with $n$ layers in the stack. As this function is monotonic in $x$ (for large enough $x$) we can define an inverse in the first argument by $g(y,n)=x$ when $f(x,n)=y$. According to Wikipedia, there is no accepted way to extend $f(x,n)$ to allow the second argument to be real, so we do not have continuity in the second argument to allow an inverse there. Given $x$ and a target $y\ge 1$ you can generally find a nonnegative integer $n$ such that $f(x,n) \le y \lt f(x,n+1)$

If you want to use the $1/n$ symbolism, we could just define $f(x,1/n)=g(x,n)$ using the above $g$. As we hadn't defined $f$ on fractional arguments before this is not a problem. In this case we will have $f(x,1/2)=y$ where $y^y=x$ We need to require that $x \gt (1/e)^{(1/e)}\approx 0.6922$ to get an invertible function.

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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