So that we don't clutter the sandbox with a zillion different googology-related threads, could we also use this thread for investigating ordinal related hierarchies?
Note: to make sure we are on stable, well-defined ground, assume all hierarchies use the fundamental sequence rules which work for n up to the largest a mentioned in each use of the hierarchy. (And, unless specified otherwise, suppose all other ordinal-based things, like dco, do as well)
Hierarchy #1: dco-based hierarchy a (i.e. #1)
Code: Select all
dcoha_0(n) = n+1
dcoha_(m+1)(n) = dcoha^n_m(n)
dcoha_m(n) = dcoha_m[n](dco(m+n)), m a lim ord > 0
Hierarchy #2:
PkmnQ's multi-ordinal hierarchy:
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
Hierarchy #3: a hierarchy that is totally appropriate for this thread, based on pkmnq's. I shall call this one "ah", or (linear) array hierarchy, for obvious reasons.
Represented as ah_n{a,b,c,d...} (finitely many entries in array)
TERMINOLOGY TIME!!!!
n is the argument
the array shall be called ü
the final argument in the array is called the "point"
the value of the function is called the hierarch
$_a shall indicate any quantity (including 0) of any arguments (we-don't-care-what-they-are kind of arguments). If a is the same thing, $_a is the same thing in all occurrences in the rules. A rule can be invoked multiple times with different $_ns however.
RULES:
1. If ah is iterated, it is assumed that ah^a_n ü = ah_ah_ah_ah_...n ü ü ü ü... with a copies of ü and ah.
Formally, define g(a,n,ü) =
ah_g(a-1,n,ü) ü, a > 1;
n, a = 0.
ah^a_n ü = g(a,n,ü)
2. ah_n{$_0,z} = ah_n{$_0}, z (the point) = 0
3. ah_n{} =n+1. That is, if ü is empty, then the hierarch = n+1
4. ah_n{a+1,$_1} = ah^n_n{a,$_1}
5. ah_n{a,$_2} = ah_n{a[n],$_2}, a a lim ord
6. ah_n{0,0,0,...a+1,$_3} = ah_(n+1){a+1,a+1,a+1,...a,$_3}, for any nonzero quantity of 0s (including, say, 1 or 2), as long as the quantity of a+1s in the resulting array is the same. (Note: did you notice the n+1? I added it because it is more like pkmnQ's thing that way, while keeping it more powerful than the fgh for multiple array entries, and also because WHY NOT)
7. ah_n{0,0,0,...a,$_4} = ah_n{a,a,a,...a[n],$_4}, a a lim ord, for any nonzero quantity of 0s, as long as the quantity of as in the resulting array is the same.
FORMALIZATION OF LAST 2 rules:
let # represent concatenation.
Specifically, {$_5}#{$_6} = {$_5,$_6}
a@b =
{a}#(a@(b-1)), b > 1
a, b = 1
formalization + relief from ALL THIS CAPITAL LETTER MADNESS here:
6. ah_n ((0@b)#{a+1,$_3}) = ah_(n+1) (((a+1)@b)#{a,$_3}), for any b > 0
7. ah_n ((0@b)#{a,$_4}) = ah_n ((a@b)#{a[n],$_4}), a a lim ord & b > 0
Question: what is the growth rate of f(n) = ah_n ((0@n)#{w+1}) ?
I have a feeling that it is
very fast
Extra question: how about for larger ordinals instead of w+1, like gamma_0 or (gamma_0) +1?