Larger value with right associative tetration?












0














Given right associative tetration where:



$^{m}n =$ n^(n^(n^…))



And a situation such as:



$^{m}n = y$



$^{q}p = z$



What is a practical way to calculate which of $y$ and $z$ are larger?




I'm particularly looking at the case where:



$(n, m, p, q)$ are $> 1$



$p > n$



$m > q$




To simplify the question further, assume that $(n, m, p, q)$ are positive integers, they could for example be in the range 10 to 100.



Therefore $(y, z)$ are also positive integers.






exponentiation tetration







share|cite|improve this question





























    0














    Given right associative tetration where:



    $^{m}n =$ n^(n^(n^…))



    And a situation such as:



    $^{m}n = y$



    $^{q}p = z$



    What is a practical way to calculate which of $y$ and $z$ are larger?




    I'm particularly looking at the case where:



    $(n, m, p, q)$ are $> 1$



    $p > n$



    $m > q$




    To simplify the question further, assume that $(n, m, p, q)$ are positive integers, they could for example be in the range 10 to 100.



    Therefore $(y, z)$ are also positive integers.






    exponentiation tetration







    share|cite|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0


      1





      Given right associative tetration where:



      $^{m}n =$ n^(n^(n^…))



      And a situation such as:



      $^{m}n = y$



      $^{q}p = z$



      What is a practical way to calculate which of $y$ and $z$ are larger?




      I'm particularly looking at the case where:



      $(n, m, p, q)$ are $> 1$



      $p > n$



      $m > q$




      To simplify the question further, assume that $(n, m, p, q)$ are positive integers, they could for example be in the range 10 to 100.



      Therefore $(y, z)$ are also positive integers.






      exponentiation tetration







      share|cite|improve this question















      Given right associative tetration where:



      $^{m}n =$ n^(n^(n^…))



      And a situation such as:



      $^{m}n = y$



      $^{q}p = z$



      What is a practical way to calculate which of $y$ and $z$ are larger?




      I'm particularly looking at the case where:



      $(n, m, p, q)$ are $> 1$



      $p > n$



      $m > q$




      To simplify the question further, assume that $(n, m, p, q)$ are positive integers, they could for example be in the range 10 to 100.



      Therefore $(y, z)$ are also positive integers.






      exponentiation tetration




      exponentiation tetration






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 25 at 23:44

























      asked Nov 25 at 13:37









      alan2here

      494219




      494219






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Generally, the (exponent?, tetrand?)... the thing in the upper left, has more of an effect on the value than the base. For example the difference between $^43$ and $^37$ is astronomical (about 3.6 trillion orders of magnitude). This only gets more true as $m$ and $n$ increase.



          As a rule of thumb, I would say whichever has the larger argument $m$ or $n$ is almost always larger. As for an exact answer, I don't know if there is one. Values resulting from tetration of large integers, say $^{987}4910$, tend do be so large that there is no way to calculate them exactly.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I disagree with this answer. There is no quantification of formalization that a reasonable algorithm is impossible.
            – AAAA
            Nov 26 at 0:19












          • The quantification is that the number of digits in $^{987}4910$ exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe more than $10^{100000}$ times over. Even if you could devise an algorithm, it will still be physically impossible to write each digit of this number down, regardless of how small you make each digit. Furthermore, it would take more time than the universe will physically exist to run the algorithm. Even if you use scientific notation, you'll still be off by orders of magnitude.
            – R. Burton
            Nov 26 at 4:10










          • I do not think you understand the point. What you say is not a proof that two numbers represented in some way with $O(n)$ bits cannot be compared in $O(poly(n))$ time.
            – AAAA
            Nov 26 at 6:10












          • I suppose... but it doesn't make much difference if the time it takes just to calculate the time it will take to calculate the difference between two sufficiently large numbers exceeds the lifetime of the human species and $O(n)$ is larger than a universe's worth of storage space.
            – R. Burton
            Nov 26 at 12:23



















          1














          There might be a way to use logarithms to simplify in a structured method. Look $a^{a^a}<b^{b^{b^b}}iff a^alog a<b^{b^b}log biff (alog a)+loglog a<(b^blog b)+loglog b$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012842%2flarger-value-with-right-associative-tetration%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1














            Generally, the (exponent?, tetrand?)... the thing in the upper left, has more of an effect on the value than the base. For example the difference between $^43$ and $^37$ is astronomical (about 3.6 trillion orders of magnitude). This only gets more true as $m$ and $n$ increase.



            As a rule of thumb, I would say whichever has the larger argument $m$ or $n$ is almost always larger. As for an exact answer, I don't know if there is one. Values resulting from tetration of large integers, say $^{987}4910$, tend do be so large that there is no way to calculate them exactly.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • I disagree with this answer. There is no quantification of formalization that a reasonable algorithm is impossible.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 0:19












            • The quantification is that the number of digits in $^{987}4910$ exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe more than $10^{100000}$ times over. Even if you could devise an algorithm, it will still be physically impossible to write each digit of this number down, regardless of how small you make each digit. Furthermore, it would take more time than the universe will physically exist to run the algorithm. Even if you use scientific notation, you'll still be off by orders of magnitude.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 4:10










            • I do not think you understand the point. What you say is not a proof that two numbers represented in some way with $O(n)$ bits cannot be compared in $O(poly(n))$ time.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 6:10












            • I suppose... but it doesn't make much difference if the time it takes just to calculate the time it will take to calculate the difference between two sufficiently large numbers exceeds the lifetime of the human species and $O(n)$ is larger than a universe's worth of storage space.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 12:23
















            1














            Generally, the (exponent?, tetrand?)... the thing in the upper left, has more of an effect on the value than the base. For example the difference between $^43$ and $^37$ is astronomical (about 3.6 trillion orders of magnitude). This only gets more true as $m$ and $n$ increase.



            As a rule of thumb, I would say whichever has the larger argument $m$ or $n$ is almost always larger. As for an exact answer, I don't know if there is one. Values resulting from tetration of large integers, say $^{987}4910$, tend do be so large that there is no way to calculate them exactly.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • I disagree with this answer. There is no quantification of formalization that a reasonable algorithm is impossible.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 0:19












            • The quantification is that the number of digits in $^{987}4910$ exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe more than $10^{100000}$ times over. Even if you could devise an algorithm, it will still be physically impossible to write each digit of this number down, regardless of how small you make each digit. Furthermore, it would take more time than the universe will physically exist to run the algorithm. Even if you use scientific notation, you'll still be off by orders of magnitude.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 4:10










            • I do not think you understand the point. What you say is not a proof that two numbers represented in some way with $O(n)$ bits cannot be compared in $O(poly(n))$ time.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 6:10












            • I suppose... but it doesn't make much difference if the time it takes just to calculate the time it will take to calculate the difference between two sufficiently large numbers exceeds the lifetime of the human species and $O(n)$ is larger than a universe's worth of storage space.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 12:23














            1












            1








            1






            Generally, the (exponent?, tetrand?)... the thing in the upper left, has more of an effect on the value than the base. For example the difference between $^43$ and $^37$ is astronomical (about 3.6 trillion orders of magnitude). This only gets more true as $m$ and $n$ increase.



            As a rule of thumb, I would say whichever has the larger argument $m$ or $n$ is almost always larger. As for an exact answer, I don't know if there is one. Values resulting from tetration of large integers, say $^{987}4910$, tend do be so large that there is no way to calculate them exactly.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Generally, the (exponent?, tetrand?)... the thing in the upper left, has more of an effect on the value than the base. For example the difference between $^43$ and $^37$ is astronomical (about 3.6 trillion orders of magnitude). This only gets more true as $m$ and $n$ increase.



            As a rule of thumb, I would say whichever has the larger argument $m$ or $n$ is almost always larger. As for an exact answer, I don't know if there is one. Values resulting from tetration of large integers, say $^{987}4910$, tend do be so large that there is no way to calculate them exactly.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 25 at 16:56









            R. Burton

            35719




            35719












            • I disagree with this answer. There is no quantification of formalization that a reasonable algorithm is impossible.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 0:19












            • The quantification is that the number of digits in $^{987}4910$ exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe more than $10^{100000}$ times over. Even if you could devise an algorithm, it will still be physically impossible to write each digit of this number down, regardless of how small you make each digit. Furthermore, it would take more time than the universe will physically exist to run the algorithm. Even if you use scientific notation, you'll still be off by orders of magnitude.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 4:10










            • I do not think you understand the point. What you say is not a proof that two numbers represented in some way with $O(n)$ bits cannot be compared in $O(poly(n))$ time.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 6:10












            • I suppose... but it doesn't make much difference if the time it takes just to calculate the time it will take to calculate the difference between two sufficiently large numbers exceeds the lifetime of the human species and $O(n)$ is larger than a universe's worth of storage space.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 12:23


















            • I disagree with this answer. There is no quantification of formalization that a reasonable algorithm is impossible.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 0:19












            • The quantification is that the number of digits in $^{987}4910$ exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe more than $10^{100000}$ times over. Even if you could devise an algorithm, it will still be physically impossible to write each digit of this number down, regardless of how small you make each digit. Furthermore, it would take more time than the universe will physically exist to run the algorithm. Even if you use scientific notation, you'll still be off by orders of magnitude.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 4:10










            • I do not think you understand the point. What you say is not a proof that two numbers represented in some way with $O(n)$ bits cannot be compared in $O(poly(n))$ time.
              – AAAA
              Nov 26 at 6:10












            • I suppose... but it doesn't make much difference if the time it takes just to calculate the time it will take to calculate the difference between two sufficiently large numbers exceeds the lifetime of the human species and $O(n)$ is larger than a universe's worth of storage space.
              – R. Burton
              Nov 26 at 12:23
















            I disagree with this answer. There is no quantification of formalization that a reasonable algorithm is impossible.
            – AAAA
            Nov 26 at 0:19






            I disagree with this answer. There is no quantification of formalization that a reasonable algorithm is impossible.
            – AAAA
            Nov 26 at 0:19














            The quantification is that the number of digits in $^{987}4910$ exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe more than $10^{100000}$ times over. Even if you could devise an algorithm, it will still be physically impossible to write each digit of this number down, regardless of how small you make each digit. Furthermore, it would take more time than the universe will physically exist to run the algorithm. Even if you use scientific notation, you'll still be off by orders of magnitude.
            – R. Burton
            Nov 26 at 4:10




            The quantification is that the number of digits in $^{987}4910$ exceeds the number of subatomic particles in the observable universe more than $10^{100000}$ times over. Even if you could devise an algorithm, it will still be physically impossible to write each digit of this number down, regardless of how small you make each digit. Furthermore, it would take more time than the universe will physically exist to run the algorithm. Even if you use scientific notation, you'll still be off by orders of magnitude.
            – R. Burton
            Nov 26 at 4:10












            I do not think you understand the point. What you say is not a proof that two numbers represented in some way with $O(n)$ bits cannot be compared in $O(poly(n))$ time.
            – AAAA
            Nov 26 at 6:10






            I do not think you understand the point. What you say is not a proof that two numbers represented in some way with $O(n)$ bits cannot be compared in $O(poly(n))$ time.
            – AAAA
            Nov 26 at 6:10














            I suppose... but it doesn't make much difference if the time it takes just to calculate the time it will take to calculate the difference between two sufficiently large numbers exceeds the lifetime of the human species and $O(n)$ is larger than a universe's worth of storage space.
            – R. Burton
            Nov 26 at 12:23




            I suppose... but it doesn't make much difference if the time it takes just to calculate the time it will take to calculate the difference between two sufficiently large numbers exceeds the lifetime of the human species and $O(n)$ is larger than a universe's worth of storage space.
            – R. Burton
            Nov 26 at 12:23











            1














            There might be a way to use logarithms to simplify in a structured method. Look $a^{a^a}<b^{b^{b^b}}iff a^alog a<b^{b^b}log biff (alog a)+loglog a<(b^blog b)+loglog b$.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              There might be a way to use logarithms to simplify in a structured method. Look $a^{a^a}<b^{b^{b^b}}iff a^alog a<b^{b^b}log biff (alog a)+loglog a<(b^blog b)+loglog b$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                There might be a way to use logarithms to simplify in a structured method. Look $a^{a^a}<b^{b^{b^b}}iff a^alog a<b^{b^b}log biff (alog a)+loglog a<(b^blog b)+loglog b$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                There might be a way to use logarithms to simplify in a structured method. Look $a^{a^a}<b^{b^{b^b}}iff a^alog a<b^{b^b}log biff (alog a)+loglog a<(b^blog b)+loglog b$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 26 at 0:09









                AAAA

                1187




                1187






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012842%2flarger-value-with-right-associative-tetration%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Mont Emei

                    Image
                    Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog...
                    Read more

                    Province de Neuquén

                    Image
                    Province de Neuquén Provincia del Neuquén .mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Héraldique Drapeau Localisation de la province de Neuquén Administration Pays   Argentine Capitale Neuquén Gouverneur Omar Gutiérrez ISO 3166-2 AR-Q Démographie Gentilé Neuquino/a Population 550 344  hab. (2010) Densité 5,8  hab./km 2 Géographie Superficie 94 078  km 2 Liens Site web http://www.neuquen.gov.ar modifier   La province de Neuquén est une province d'Argentine, qui se trouve à l'extrémité nord-ouest de la Patagonie argentine. Avec une superficie de 94 378  km 2 , elle est la plus petite province des régions australes du pays. Sa géographie s'abîme sur l'imposante Cordillère des Andes. Sommaire 1 Histoire 1.1 Avant la découverte par les Espagnols 1.2 ...
                    Read more

                    Journaliste

                    Image
                    Pour les articles homonymes, voir Journaliste (homonymie). Journaliste Journalistes Appellation Journaliste Secteur d'activité Média - Communication Professions voisines Journaliste sportif - Reporter-photographe - Éditorialiste Codes CITP 2451, 2642 IDEO (France) 10197 ROME (France) E1106 modifier - modifier le code - modifier Wikidata Un journaliste est une personne qui recueille, écrit ou distribue des informations. L'activité d'un journaliste est le journalisme. Un journaliste peut travailler sur des sujets généraux ou se spécialiser dans certaines questions. La plupart des journalistes ont tendance à se spécialiser et, en collaborant avec d'autres journalistes, rédigent un article ou mettent en forme un reportage qui couvre l'actualité. Par exemple, un journaliste sportif couvre les nouvelles dans le monde du sport, mais ce journaliste peut aussi faire partie d'un journal qui couvre d'autres su...
                    Read more