Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hey there,

 

First of all, I'm completely new to calculus in any form, so please excuse any completely obvious errors if there are any.

 

I was just wondering the other day about the derivative of a Power Tower. I tried to treat it as [math]ax^n[/math], and came up with

 

[math]f(a, b) = a \uparrow \uparrow b[/math]

[math]f'(a, b) = (a \uparrow \uparrow b) a^{(a \uparrow \uparrow [b-1]) -1}[/math]

 

Is this correct?

 

Cheers,

 

Gabe

Edited by Shadow
Posted

I do not understand your notation, but lets do a simple exercise.

 

Let [math]f(x) = a(x)^{b(x)}[/math] and lets suppose we wish to calculate the derivative of [math]f[/math].

 

To do this, lets take the [math]\log[/math] thus

 

[math]\log[f](x) = b(x) \log[a[x]][/math].

 

Now take the derivative,

 

[math]\frac{f'(x)}{f(x)} = b'(x)\log[a(x)] + b(x) \frac{a'(x)}{a(x)}[/math],

 

where hence

 

[math]f'(x) = a(x)^{b(x)} \left( b'(x) \log[a(x)] + b(x) \frac{a'(x)}{a(x)} \right)[/math].

 

You can now use this formula iteratively to calculate higher order towers.

Posted

Yeah, I believe Maple gave me something similar. Anyway, the notation I'm using is Knuth's up-arrow notation. And why can't I treat a Power Tower like I would [math]a^n[/math]? I mean, if we have a power tower [math]a \uparrow \uparrow b[/math] and treat it as [math]a^n[/math], then [math]a=a[/math] and [math]n= a \uparrow \uparrow (b-1)[/math]...doesn't it?

Posted

Isn't the reason simply that [math]n \neq n(x)[/math] which allows you to simplify things?

 

The formula I have given works for [math]a(x)^{b}[/math] with [math]b \neq b(x)[/math].

Posted

The power tower is different from an exponent -- that's why there is a different notation. Your question, to me at least, isn't terribly clear, because you use a prime, but there are two variables given f(a,b). Is the prime meant to represent differentiation with respect to a or b?

Posted

Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure I could get away with that :D But I guess with respect to a, although I'm not completely sure; as I said, I'm as new to calculus as one can get, and I think I've already jumped a little too far for my level.

 

And while I'm aware that tetration and exponentiation is different, you can do the same thing with multiplication;

 

[math]\underbrace{a*a*a*a*a...a*a}_{b}[/math] can be represented as either [math]a^b[/math] or as [math]a*c[/math], where [math]c=\underbrace{a*a*a*a*a...a*a}_{b-1}[/math]. So why can't we treat tetration the same way? If we do [math]\underbrace{a^{a^{a^{.^{.^{.}}}}}}_{b}[/math], then it should be equal to both [math]a \uparrow \uparrow b[/math] and to [math]a^c[/math], where [math]c= \underbrace{a^{a^{a^{.^{.^{.}}}}}}_{b-1}[/math]

 

Cheers,

 

Gabe

Posted

If I am reading you right, you want to take a derivative with respect to the function a(x)? (or b(x)).

 

If so you can do such things it is called the functional derivative and is very important in physics.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.