ConwayLife.com

testitemqlstudop wrote:...This topic is taking over BOTH the LTCFC and TFNCAQ so now it deserves its own thread.

Primarily I'm concerned about large ordinals here.

For example, the first fixed point of ∂ |-> w∂ is w^^2. Hence we can make a function:
f(i) = the i-th fixed point of ∂ |-> w∂
What would f(2) be? f(w)? Would the last fixed point of ∂ |-> w∂ be well-defined?

At this point there is a function that diagonalizes from epsilon 0:
f(i) =the 1st fixed point of ∂ |-> {w, ∂, i, 1}
...if I got BEAF correct.

Then we effectively get a new fast growing function t(i), where assuming FGH is the fgh function,
t(i) = FGH_f(i)(2)

oddpart(n/2), n/2 ∈ natural numbers
n, n/2 ∈ not-natural numbers

n/oddpart(n)

(ord(log_2(twoeypart(n))),ord((oddpart(n)-1)/2)), n>0
0, n=0

testitemqlstudop wrote:Which f

x, n = 0
f_n[x](x), n a lim ord
[something involving f_n-1(x)] otherwise

x+1, n = 0
f_n[x](x), n a lim ord
f^x_n-1(x) otherwise

x, n = 0
h_n[x](x), n a lim ord
h_n-1(x+1) otherwise

x, n = 0
g_n[x](x), n a lim ord
g_n-1(x)+1 otherwise

testitempimplesquidIDyoulot wrote:f(i) =the 1st fixed point of ∂ |-> {w, ∂, i, 1}
...if I got BEAF correct.

Hdjensofjfnen wrote:I've posted the fifth post in this thread.

testitemqlstudop wrote:Congratulations, we now need an fgh for the fgh.

x+1, n = 0
wm_g(x,n,x)(x), n a lim ord
wm^x_n-1(x) otherwise

define g(m,n,x) =
n[g(m-1,n,x)], m>0,
x, m less than or = to 0 

(g is just n[n[n[n[n[n[n[....x]]]]], with m ns)

x+1, n = 0
sm_g(x,n,x)(x), n a lim ord
sm^x_n-1(x) otherwise

define g(m,n,x) =
n[sm_g(m-1,n,x)(x)], m>0,
x, m less than or = to 0

testitemqlstudop wrote:...This topic is taking over BOTH the LTCFC and TFNCAQ so now it deserves its own thread.

Primarily I'm concerned about large ordinals here.

For example, the first fixed point of ∂ |-> w∂ is w^w. Hence we can make a function:
f(i) = the i-th fixed point of ∂ |-> w∂
What would f(2) be? f(w)? Would the last fixed point of ∂ |-> w∂ be well-defined?

Moosey wrote: The fgh, sgh, and HH are all defined in the general format
f_n(x) =

Code: Select all

x, n = 0
f_n[x](x), n a lim ord
[something involving f_n-1(x)] otherwise

x, m=0 and n=0
Ę_m_n[x](x), n a limit ord
Ę_m_n-1(x+1) n not a limit ord
Ę_m[x]_m(x), n=0 and m a limit ord
Ę_m-1_m(x+1), n=0 and m not a limit ord

Ę_w_w(1)
Ę_w_1(1)
Ę_w_0(2)
Ę_2_w(2)
Ę_2_2(2)
Ę_2_1(3)
Ę_2_0(4)
Ę_1_2(5)
Ę_1_1(6)
Ę_1_0(7)
Ę_0_1(8)
Ę_0_0(9)
9

Ę_w_w^2+1(2)
Ę_w_w^2(3)
Ę_w_w3(3)
Ę_w_9(3)
Ę_w_0(12)
Ę_12_w(12)
Ę_12_12(12)
Ę_12_0(24)
Ę_11_12(25)
Ę_11_0(37)
Ę_10_11(38)
Ę_10_0(49)
Ę_9_10(50)
Ę_9_0(60)
Ę_8_9(61)
Ę_8_0(70)
Ę_7_8(71)
Ę_7_0(79)
Ę_6_7(80)
Ę_6_0(87)
Ę_5_6(88)
Ę_5_0(94)
Ę_4_5(95)
Ę_4_0(100)
Ę_3_4(101)
Ę_3_0(105)
Ę_2_3(106)
Ę_2_0(109)
Ę_1_2(110)
Ę_1_0(112)
Ę_0_1(113)
Ę_0_0(114)
114

BlinkerSpawn wrote:
∂ |-> w∂ is the same as w^∂ |-> w^(1+∂), so f(i) is w^{i'th limit of successors} = w^(wi). The "last fixed point" does not exist because there is no greatest ordinal.

testitemqlstudop wrote:

BlinkerSpawn wrote:
∂ |-> w∂ is the same as w^∂ |-> w^(1+∂), so f(i) is w^{i'th limit of successors} = w^(wi). The "last fixed point" does not exist because there is no greatest ordinal.

There has to be something wrong with that logic, because if ∂ = w2 = w+w, then it is implied that w+w = w(w+w), or w+w = w^2+w^2.

testitemqlstudop wrote:Any limit ordinal ∂ is the supremum of all elements in its fundamental sequence?

testitemqlstudop wrote:

BlinkerSpawn wrote:
∂ |-> w∂ is the same as w^∂ |-> w^(1+∂), so f(i) is w^{i'th limit of successors} = w^(wi). The "last fixed point" does not exist because there is no greatest ordinal.

There has to be something wrong with that logic, because if ∂ = w2 = w+w, then it is implied that w+w = w(w+w), or w+w = w^2+w^2.

BlinkerSpawn wrote:

testitemqlstudop wrote:

BlinkerSpawn wrote:
∂ |-> w∂ is the same as w^∂ |-> w^(1+∂), so f(i) is w^{i'th limit of successors} = w^(wi). The "last fixed point" does not exist because there is no greatest ordinal.

There has to be something wrong with that logic, because if ∂ = w2 = w+w, then it is implied that w+w = w(w+w), or w+w = w^2+w^2.

Of course w2 doesn't work, it's not of form w^(wa).

Moosey wrote:

testitemqlstudop wrote:

BlinkerSpawn wrote:
∂ |-> w∂ is the same as w^∂ |-> w^(1+∂), so f(i) is w^{i'th limit of successors} = w^(wi). The "last fixed point" does not exist because there is no greatest ordinal.

There has to be something wrong with that logic, because if ∂ = w2 = w+w, then it is implied that w+w = w(w+w), or w+w = w^2+w^2.

You can't just assign arbitrary values unless you follow the such that.
Of course it won't work for ∂ = w2

ssm_n(x,y)=

x+y, n = 0

ssm_sg(x,n,x,y)(x,y), n a lim ord

ssm_n-1(x,xy) otherwise

define sg(m,n,x,y) =

n[ssm_sg(m-1,n,x)(x,y)], m>0,

x, m less than or = to 0

sm_n(x)=

x+1, n = 0
sm_g(x,n,x)(x), n a lim ord
sm^x_n-1(x) otherwise

define g(m,n,x) =
n[sm_g(m-1,n,x)(x)], m>0,
x, m less than or = to 0

sm_g(3,w,3)(3)=
sm_w[sm_g(2,w,3)(3)](3)=
sm_w[sm_w[sm_g(1,w,3)(3)](3)](3)=
sm_w[sm_w[sm_w[sm_g(0,w,3)(3)](3)](3)=
sm_w[sm_w[sm_w[sm_3(3)](3)](3)=
f_(f_(f_(f_3(3))(3))(3))(3))

f_3(3)= f_2(f_2(f_2(3)))

f_2(3)=(2^3)*3 = 24

f_3(3) = f_2(f_2(24)) =
f_2((2^24)*24) =
f_2(402653184) =
(2^402653184)*402653184

f_(f_(f_(f_3(3))(3))(3))(3)) =
f_(f_(f_(2^402653184)*402653184(3))(3))(3)) ...

>f_(f_(2{2^402653184*402653184-1}3)(3))(3))... (using bowers' notation)

> 2{2{2{2^402653184*402653184-1}3-1}3-1}3

#C the 3-1's aren't twos -- you have to follow order of operations.
#C presumably more knuth arrows = higher priority in order of operations, but the point is that you're subtracting from the 2{huge thing}3 mess
x = 167, y = 24, rule = B/S012345678
63bobob3ob3ob3ob3ob3obob3obobo$63bobobobo3bobo3bo5bobobobobobo$63b3obo
bob3ob3ob3ob3obob3ob3o$65bobobobo3bobo3bo3bobobobo3bo$65bob3ob3ob3ob3o
b3obob3o3bo$59b3o39bobob3ob3ob3ob3ob3obob3obobo5bo$61bo39bobobobo3bobo
3bo5bobobobobobo5bo$59b3o35bobob3obobob3ob3ob3ob3obob3ob3ob3obo$59bo
38bo4bobobobo3bobo3bo3bobobobo3bo5bo$51b3o2bo2b3o35bobo3bob3ob3ob3ob3o
b3obob3o3bo5bo2b3o5bo$53bob3o86bo5bo$51b3o2bo85b3ob3obo$51bo4bo87bo5bo
$43b3o2bo2b3o2bo85b3o5bo2b3o5bo$45bob3o105bo5bo$43b3o2bo104b3ob3obo$
25b2o16bo4bo106bo5bo$14bob3obo6b2o6b3o2bo2b3o2bo104b3o5bo2b3o$b2o2b2o
6bo4bo2bo7bo7bob3o124bo$bo2b2o7bo2b3o2bo5b2o6b3o2bo123b3o$2o2bo3bobo2b
o4bo2bo3b2o8bo4bo125bo$7bo3bo2bob3obo14b3o2bo123b3o$7bobobo13b5o$8b3o!

PkmnQ wrote: ↑

September 27th, 2019, 10:20 am

Moosey wrote: The fgh, sgh, and HH are all defined in the general format
f_n(x) =

Code: Select all

x, n = 0
f_n[x](x), n a lim ord
[something involving f_n-1(x)] otherwise

What if I...

Ę_m_n(x) =

Code: Select all

x, m=0 and n=0
Ę_m_n[x](x), n a limit ord
Ę_m_n-1(x+1) n not a limit ord
Ę_m[x]_m(x), n=0 and m a limit ord
Ę_m-1_m(x+1), n=0 and m not a limit ord

x+1, m=0 and n=0
smĘ_m_ge(x,n,x)(x), n a lim ord
smĘ^x_m_n-1(x), n not a lim ord
smĘ_ge(x,m,x)_m(x), n=0 and m a lim ord
smĘ_m-1_m(x+1), n=0 and m not a lim ord

define ge(m,n,x) =
n[smĘ_ge(m-1,n,x)(x)], m>0,
x, m less than or = to 0

Moosey wrote: ↑

October 4th, 2019, 3:03 pm

Anyone care to evaluate
smĘ_w_w(1)?

Moosey wrote: ↑

October 4th, 2019, 6:31 pm

Here's a new thing

The decord (decreasing ordinal) sequence:

start with an ordinal c as term 1.
Rules:
Iff term n is 0: stop
Else:
Iff term n (call it a) is a limit ord, whose minimum "term" (eg. in w^w + w^4 + w2 = w^w + w^4 + w + w, the minimum term is w) is b, and for whom the rest of the terms of a are called r:
term n+1 = r+b[n] + b[n-1] + b[n-2] ... b[1],
Else:
Term n+1 = a-1

Demo:

Code: Select all

w+1
w
3
2
1
0

Code: Select all

w^w+1
w^w
w^2+w
w^2+6
w^2+5
w^2+4
w^2+3
w^2+2
w^2+1
w^2 (10th term)
w55
w54+66
...
w54 (78th term)
w53+3081
...
w53 (3160th term)
...

Obviously this leads to a new function:
the term in the decord sequence for the ordinal a at which it becomes zero = dco(a) (decord)
dco(w+1) = 6, and dco(w^w+1) is ~tri^53(3160), give or take an iteration or two, where tri(n) = the nth triangular number. This suggests a reasonable bound of dco(w^w+1) << 3160^106 (though not in a googolplex-vs-g_64 kind of <<)

Since a[n] < a for all finite n, all decord sequences strictly decrease over time. Thus, dco(a) is finite for all a

Moosey wrote: ↑

October 3rd, 2019, 4:55 pm

smĘ_m_n(x)= (m and n)

Code: Select all

x+1, m=0 and n=0
smĘ_m_ge(x,n,x)(x), n a lim ord
smĘ^x_m_n-1(x), n not a lim ord
smĘ_ge(x,m,x)_m(x), n=0 and m a lim ord
smĘ_m-1_m(x+1), n=0 and m not a lim ord

define ge(m,n,x) =
n[smĘ_ge(m-1,n,x)(x)], m>0, (you only provided m)
x, m less than or = to 0

You could call it the "hardy strong-moose Ę hierarchy"

PkmnQ wrote: ↑

October 4th, 2019, 9:10 pm

Here’s what I see about dco(n) right now.

₩(w) = 0
₩(w+1) = 1
₩(w^2+14233221) = 14233221
n < w dco(n) = n+1
w < n < w2 dco(n) = 2₩(n+1)+1

Moosey wrote: ↑

October 5th, 2019, 9:11 am

PkmnQ wrote: ↑

October 4th, 2019, 9:10 pm

Here’s what I see about dco(n) right now.

n < w dco(n) = n+1
w < n < w2 dco(n) = 2₩(n+1)+1

what is the definition of ₩?