Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Real and complex behaviour of the base change function (was: The "cheta" function)
#32
(08/20/2009, 10:28 AM)bo198214 Wrote: Though currently I wonder whether these arbitrary close singularities indeed imply that the function is not analytic in any point.
I mean there is a theorem that if a holomorphic function sequence converges locally uniformly (i.e. for each point there is a neighborhood where it converges uniformly) then the limit is again a holomorphic function (which is not true for just differentiable functions).

However I dont think that the inverse statement is also true, that if a function sequence does not converge locally uniformly that then resulting function can not be holomorphic.

For example a sequence of non-continuous functions can have a continuous function as a limit. Also Jay showed that the singularities gets milder with increasing n. So there maybe a very little tiny hope that the resulting function is analytic despite.
Henryk, I finally caught up with your formula for the singularities -- its very helpful. I have a pretty good intuitive feel for the singularities for small values of k.

It appears there are about 500,000 or so n=3 singularities in the critical strip used by the base change equation (from 5.016 to 6.330). I would assume the n=4 singularities would be super-exponentially denser yet.
k=1, 4.8688+0.5713i
k=2, 5.0732+0.4586i
k=3, 5.1734+0.4068i
k=500,000 6.3301+0.0706i

In looking at the singularities for small values of k, It seems that the function becomes undefined (or multi-valued?), once passing the neighborhood of the singularity. Each singularity is associated with a particular increment of the windings. Even ignoring the singularities associated with very large values of k, values of n>4, (which approach arbitrarily close to the real axis), can we continue the function for smaller of k, where n=4 as opposed to n=infinity?

Typo correction: Actually I used n=3 in Henryk's equation, but to see the singularities in the "f" base change equation below requires using n=4.


I have not yet made the leap to understanding the singularities associated with larger values of k, and how they change the behavior of f, but I hope to do so.
- Sheldon
Reply


Messages In This Thread

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Complex Tetration, to base exp(1/e) Ember Edison 7 610 08/14/2019, 09:15 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Is there a function space for tetration? Chenjesu 0 85 06/23/2019, 08:24 PM
Last Post: Chenjesu
  Can we get the holomorphic super-root and super-logarithm function? Ember Edison 10 878 06/10/2019, 04:29 AM
Last Post: Ember Edison
  Degamma function Xorter 0 590 10/22/2018, 11:29 AM
Last Post: Xorter
  b^b^x with base 0<b<e^-e have three real fixpoints Gottfried 1 1,855 11/07/2017, 11:06 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  An explicit series for the tetration of a complex height Vladimir Reshetnikov 13 9,821 01/14/2017, 09:09 PM
Last Post: Vladimir Reshetnikov
  Taylor series of cheta Xorter 13 10,241 08/28/2016, 08:52 PM
Last Post: sheldonison
  2 real fixpoints again ....... tommy1729 10 7,777 02/23/2016, 10:17 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Should tetration be a multivalued function? marraco 17 14,178 01/14/2016, 04:24 AM
Last Post: marraco
  Introducing new special function : Lambert_t(z,r) tommy1729 2 3,076 01/10/2016, 06:14 PM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)