Intereting Posts

The probability two balls have the same number
Size of Jordan block
Proof of Different Polynomial Decompositions into Linear Factors
Converting an ODE in polar form
How to prove the continuity of the metric function?
Can anybody help me with this logarithm problem?
Prove that if $$ is odd then $F(\alpha)=F(\alpha^2)$
Right triangle on an ellipse, find the area
Show that $e^{x+y}=e^xe^y$ using $e^x=\lim_{n\to\infty }\left(1+\frac{x}{n}\right)^n$.
Advanced Algebraic Equation – Solve for P
How is it that treating Leibniz notation as a fraction is fundamentally incorrect but at the same time useful?
Link between convergence in Probability of a supremum and a limsup
Fourier series for $f(x)=(\pi -x)/2$
How to understand Weyl chambers?
What is the geodesic equation on $\mathbb{S}^{n}$?

So in the past few months when trying to learn about the properties of the fixed points in ordinals as I move from $0$ to $\epsilon_{\epsilon_0}$ I noticed when moving from $\epsilon_n$ to the next one $\epsilon_{n+1}$, the operation that does that is a left associative operation i.e.

$${\tiny⋰}^{\epsilon_n^{\epsilon_n}}={}^{\omega}(\epsilon_n)=\epsilon_{n+1}$$

Since the exact same rule holds for all epsilons to those that are indexed by successor ordinals, unwrapping the whole thing gives $\epsilon_{n},n < \omega$ in terms of $\epsilon_0$:

- Notation for n-ary exponentiation
- Why are addition and multiplication commutative, but not exponentiation?
- Example $x$, $y$ and $z$ values for $x\uparrow^\alpha y=z$ where $\alpha\in \Bbb R-\Bbb N$
- How to define $A\uparrow B$ with a universal property as well as $A\oplus B$, $A\times B$, $A^B$ in category theory?
- Algorithm for comparing the size of extremely large numbers
- Does anything precede incrementation in the operator “hierarchy?”

$$\epsilon_n=\underbrace{{}^{\omega}(\cdots{}^{\omega}({}^{\omega}(}_{\textrm{n times}}\epsilon_0)))=\underbrace{{}^{\omega}(\cdots{}^{\omega}({}^{\omega}(}_{\textrm{n-1 times}}\epsilon_1)))=\underbrace{{}^{\omega}(\cdots{}^{\omega}({}^{\omega}(}_{\textrm{n-2 times}}\epsilon_2)))=etc.$$

That means, while $\epsilon_0$ is informally speaking the same as ${}^{\omega}\omega=\omega^{\omega^⋰}$ hence $\omega [5] 2=\omega\uparrow^3 2$, a pentation, all subsequent epsilon numbers are not tetration because the iterative operations that define them recursively is left associative but not right associative (as it would be the case for hyperoperators).

This then prompt the question: What prevent us from defining ordinal tetration, do they end up collapsing into $\epsilon_0$ or related terms thus making them unnecessary, or something else happens

To begin, since $\epsilon_0=\omega[5]2$, the next probable candidate for $\omega [5]3$ will be ${}^{{}^{\omega}}{}^{\omega}\omega=\left(\left({}^{({}^{\omega})}{}^{\omega}\right)\omega\right)$ Note the definition of $\epsilon_0$ means

$${}^{{}^{\omega}}{}^{\omega}\omega={}^{\epsilon_0}\omega$$

However, because exponentiation already lost associativity, tetration have almost no useful general identities except for finite integers $a,b,n$ (Using exponential identity $\alpha^{\beta\gamma}=(\alpha^\beta)^\gamma$ and that finite integers at the index commute)

$$(a^b)^{{}^{n-1}a}=({}^na)^b$$

Therefore, no known ordinal arithmetic can be used to simplify ${}^{\epsilon_0}\omega$. This prompt me to try a sandwiching approach as follows (where $f$ is some increasing normal function that serves as the iterative operation that climb up this sequence):

$${}^{({}^j\omega)}\omega<f({}^{({}^j\omega)}\omega)<{}^{({}^{j+1}\omega)}\omega$$

If we move through all $j < \omega$ and take the supremum, then we discover that ${}^{\epsilon_0}\omega$ is a fixed point of $f$. But nothing can be deduced further as I have no idea how to derive $f$ explicitly other than it is an operation that is similar to exponentiation, but only applied to the height i.e. $f: {}^j\omega \to \omega^{{}^j\omega}$. Either way, it had said nothing on whether ${}^{\epsilon_0}\omega$ is one of the epsilon number or where it is ordered wrt the usual ordinals.

Wikpedia also has a talk section saying that ordinal tetration is trivial, or that it will collapse into $\epsilon_0$. But as shown with ${}^{\epsilon_0}\omega$, I have so far failed to reproduce their results.

What other squeezing schemes (i.e. where should I put my $j$) I can use (or other properties of ordinals) in order to determine the value of ${}^{\epsilon_0}\omega$ ?

(NB You know my main focus is not large countable numbers since Veblen functions will eventually overshoot any hyperoperation)

- How do we justify functions on the Ordinals
- Could someone tell me how large this number is?
- Does anything precede incrementation in the operator “hierarchy?”
- Is $(\pmb{1} + \pmb{\eta})\cdot\pmb{\omega_1} = \pmb{1} + \pmb{\eta}\cdot\pmb{\omega_1}$?
- show that every continuous real-valued function defined on $S_{\mathbb{\Omega}}$ is eventually constant
- Example $x$, $y$ and $z$ values for $x\uparrow^\alpha y=z$ where $\alpha\in \Bbb R-\Bbb N$
- Can any infinite ordinal be expressed as the sum of a limit ordinal and a finite ordinal?
- Uncountability of countable ordinals
- How to define countability of $\omega^{\omega}$ and $\omega_1$? in set theory?
- What does order topology over Ordinal numbers look like, and how does it work?

So while in the main chat room, I devised a way to define tetration, and it works quite nicely.

$$\alpha\uparrow\uparrow\beta=\begin{cases}0,&\beta=-1\\1,&\beta=0\\\alpha,&\beta=1\\\alpha^{\alpha\uparrow\uparrow\zeta},&\alpha<\omega,\beta=\zeta+1>1\\(\alpha\uparrow\uparrow\zeta)^{\alpha\uparrow\uparrow\zeta},&\alpha\ge\omega,\beta=\zeta+1>1\\\sup\{\alpha\uparrow\uparrow(\beta[\eta])|\eta<\operatorname{cf}(\beta)\},&\beta\in\mathbb{Lim}\end{cases}$$

For finite $\alpha,\beta$, $\alpha\uparrow\uparrow\beta$ is what you expect it to be. Then,

$$\alpha\uparrow\uparrow\beta=\omega\forall\alpha<\omega\land\beta\ge\omega$$

Then we have,

$$\omega\uparrow\uparrow1=\omega\\\omega\uparrow\uparrow2=\omega^\omega\\\omega\uparrow\uparrow3=(\omega^\omega)^{\omega^\omega}=\omega^{\omega^\omega}$$

And so forth. Then,

$$\omega\uparrow\uparrow\omega=\varepsilon_0\\\omega\uparrow\uparrow(\omega+1)=\varepsilon_0^{\varepsilon_0}\\\vdots\\\omega\uparrow\uparrow(\omega2)=\varepsilon_1\\\vdots\\\omega\uparrow\uparrow(\omega(1+\beta))=\varepsilon_\beta\forall\beta\le\zeta_0$$

Thus, by this definition,

$$\omega\uparrow\uparrow\varepsilon_0=\varepsilon_{\varepsilon_0}$$

The following definition may be nicer to use:

$$\alpha\uparrow^\beta\delta=\begin{cases}\alpha,&\delta=1\\\alpha^\delta,&\beta=1\\\sup\{(\alpha\uparrow^\beta\psi)\uparrow^\gamma(\alpha\uparrow^\beta\psi)|0<\gamma<\beta,0<\psi<\delta\},&\text{else}\end{cases}$$

And likewise extends to higher operations.

I believe I incidentally answered this question while working on some research recently — it is possible to extend the usual hyperoperation sequence $\mathcal{H}_\omega$ on $\mathbb{N}$ to a recursive sequence of operations $\mathcal{H}$ on $O_n$, with the following result:

$$\mathcal{H}_{_\Omega}(\alpha,\beta)=\begin{cases}

\mathcal{S}\alpha, & \text{if} \ \Omega=0. \\

\alpha, & \text{if} \ \Omega=1 \ \text{and} \ \beta=0. \\

\mathcal{S}\alpha,& \text{if} \ \Omega=1 \ \text{and} \ \beta=1. \\

0, & \text{if} \ \Omega=2 \ \text{and} \ \beta=0. \\

\alpha, & \text{if} \ \Omega=2 \ \text{and} \ \beta=1. \\

1, & \text{if} \ \Omega\geq3 \ \text{and} \ \beta=0. \\

\alpha, & \text{if} \ \Omega\geq3 \ \text{and} \ \beta=1. \\

\mathcal{H}_{_{\Omega-1}}\big(\mathcal{H}_{_\Omega}(\alpha,\beta-1),\alpha\big), & \text{if} \ \Omega=\mathcal{S}\bigcup\Omega \ \text{and} \ 1<\beta=\mathcal{S}\bigcup\beta. \\

\bigcup_{\delta<\beta}\mathcal{H}_{_\Omega}(\alpha,\delta), & \text{if} \ \Omega=\mathcal{S}\bigcup\Omega \ \text{and} \ \ 1<\beta=\bigcup\beta . \\

\bigcup_{\rho<\Omega}\mathcal{H}_{_\rho}(\alpha,\beta), & \text{if} \ 0\neq\Omega=\bigcup\Omega \ \text{and} \ 1<\beta=\mathcal{S}\bigcup\beta. \\

\bigcup_{\rho<\Omega}\bigcup_{\delta<\beta}\mathcal{H}_{_\rho}(\alpha,\delta), & \text{if} \ 0\neq\Omega=\bigcup\Omega \ \text{and} \ 1<\beta=\bigcup\beta. \\

\end{cases}$$

This ‘transfinite hyperoperation sequence’ is a very ‘large’ object in the sense that each hyperoperation in the sequence is a proper class, but it is well defined under the appropriate reflection principle or under ETR and satisfies nice relations like $\mathcal{H}_4(\omega,\omega)=^\omega\omega=\omega^{\omega^{\omega^{\dots}}}$ in your question, and $\mathcal{H}_5(\omega,\omega)=^{^{^{\dots}\omega}\omega}\omega$, so on and so forth.

We can also generalize $\gamma$, $\delta$ and $\epsilon$ numbers to the $\Omega^{th}$ hyperoperation, finding ordinals that ‘absorb’ larger and larger recursively defined binary operations. If you would like to see a proof of the above claims, feel free to check out my paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.08908 — the part involving this hyperoperation sequence begins on page 20.

- Why does this not seem to be random?
- A maximal ideal is always a prime ideal?
- About the asymptotic formula of Bessel function
- Algorithm to get the maximum size of n squares that fit into a rectangle with a given width and height
- If $\mathbb E=0$ for all $G\in \mathcal G$, does $X=0$?
- Explicitly finding the sum of $\arctan(1/(n^2+n+1))$
- Do sets whose power sets have the same cardinality, have the same cardinality?
- Subgroups of Abelian Groups
- $\mathcal{C}^1$ implies locally Lipschitz in $\mathbb{R}^n$
- Finite field, every element is a square implies char equal 2
- Proving an operation of interior is a set of open sets.
- A continuous bijection from a compact space to a $T_2$ space is always a homeomorphism
- What is the flaw of this proof (largest integer)?
- $\forall m,n \in \Bbb N$ : $\ 56786730\mid mn(m^{60}-n^{60})$
- If $G$ is a finite group and $|G| < |A| + |B|$, then $G=AB$.