• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 simple idea ... tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,385 Threads: 338 Joined: Feb 2009 04/28/2009, 12:28 PM a simple idea ... maybe considered before ? let us approximate exp(x) with polynomials of degree n. let us call that exp_n(x). now we can solve for f_n(f_n(x)) = exp_n(x) if n is large enough and then f_n(x) being a polynomial of degree < n. ( we ignore the terms of degree > n in f_n(f_n(x)) ) now if lim f_n(x) exists we got f(x) with f(f(x) = exp(x). .... headscratch ... regards tommy1729 andydude Long Time Fellow Posts: 509 Threads: 44 Joined: Aug 2007 04/29/2009, 03:05 AM tommy1729 Wrote:headscratch ...That doesn't work. Suppose $f(x) = x^2$ then $f(f(x)) = x^4$. Chopping off the second series gives $f(x) = 0$ which is false. tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,385 Threads: 338 Joined: Feb 2009 04/29/2009, 12:23 PM andydude Wrote:tommy1729 Wrote:headscratch ...That doesn't work. Suppose $f(x) = x^2$ then $f(f(x)) = x^4$. Chopping off the second series gives $f(x) = 0$ which is false. well , thanks for your reply andy. but i dont agree , and i assume you misunderstood what i meant. in your example there is nothing to chop off ? the degree of f(f(x)) = 4 just as desired. what is ignored is more something like this ( with some imagination , example not so good ) f(x) = a + b x^4 + (x^17) / 17! f(f(x)) = polynomial of degree 16 + ' some terms of degree > 16 ' ' those terms of degree > 16 ' are caused by the x^17 part so they are dropped. they are pretty small for some x afterall since i took x ^17 / 17! that is important , what we ignore must be relatively small. but exp(x) has a fast converging taylor series so *that* should probably not be a problem. however in the OP i assumed a limit , that might be trickier. but i believe that when taking the limit in a good way , we have chance at succeeding ... i hope this clarifies a bit ... regards tommy1729 andydude Long Time Fellow Posts: 509 Threads: 44 Joined: Aug 2007 04/29/2009, 05:13 PM tommy1729 Wrote:i hope this clarifies a bit ... Nope. Still head scratching. bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,389 Threads: 90 Joined: Aug 2007 04/29/2009, 05:38 PM andydude Wrote:Nope. Still head scratching. Me too. Most polynomials have no polynomial half iterate, so how can your suggestion work? « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Nixon-Banach-Lambert-Raes tetration is analytic , simple and “ closed form “ !! tommy1729 7 225 01/19/2021, 01:27 AM Last Post: JmsNxn tommy's simple solution ln^[n](2sinh^[n+x](z)) tommy1729 1 3,889 01/17/2017, 07:21 AM Last Post: sheldonison A simple yet unsolved equation for slog(z) ? tommy1729 0 2,576 04/27/2014, 08:02 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Simple method for half iterate NOT based on a fixpoint. tommy1729 2 4,841 04/30/2013, 09:33 PM Last Post: tommy1729 simple base conversion formula for tetration JmsNxn 0 4,056 09/22/2011, 07:41 PM Last Post: JmsNxn (draft) integral idea tommy1729 0 3,073 06/25/2011, 10:17 PM Last Post: tommy1729 2 simple statements tommy1729 0 2,451 09/01/2010, 03:25 PM Last Post: tommy1729 simple equation for R -> R tommy1729 2 5,527 08/13/2010, 12:28 AM Last Post: sheldonison Simple Question about e^(1/e) rsgerard 7 11,779 05/26/2010, 06:04 PM Last Post: tommy1729 meromorphic idea tommy1729 2 5,956 05/13/2009, 11:18 PM Last Post: tommy1729

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)