Thread Rating:
• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 the inconsistency depending on fixpoint-selection Gottfried Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 776 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 03/08/2008, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 03/08/2008, 09:23 PM by Gottfried.) An interesting result occurs, if e<>1, thus if rescaling is allowed. I tried to find one e, for which the resulting powerseries are linear scalings of each other, such that g0(x)=c * g1(x) This is possible. Assume again, that, denoting the fixpoints p and q, such that f(x) = x + (x - p) (x - q) Denote also the substitution z = x' = x/e - d and the backsubstitution x" = (x + d)*e Recall, that for a fixpoint p, d and e must be selected that p = e*d If I select Code:´     e0 = 1 + (p-q)    d0=p/e0          // first fixpoint     e1 = 1 + (q-p)    d1=q/e1          // second fixpointthen the resulting G0 and G1-matrices provide the same powerseries with a linear scaling. Example Code:´     using fixpoint p                     using fixpoint q                                   e0 = 1 + (p-q)                       e1 = 1 + (q-p)                                   z0 =  x/e0 - d0 = (x-p)/e0           z1 =  x/e1 - d1 = (x-q)/e1                                                                                                          g0(z) = e0 z^2 + (1+(p-q))z          g1(z) = e1 z^2 + (1+(q-p))z The matrices and eigenmatrices for g0 and g1 are as follows: Code:´ W0                                       W1                 1        0       0    0     0     0  |  1            0         0      0      0       0   0        1       0    0     0     0  |  0            1         0      0      0       0   0        2       1    0     0     0  |  0           -2         1      0      0       0   0      8/3       4    1     0     0  |  0         24/5        -4      1      0       0   0     24/7    28/3    6     1     0  |  0     -1176/95      68/5     -6      1       0   0  416/105  368/21   20     8     1  |  0  204768/6175  -4176/95  132/5     -8       1   ...                                      ... D0                                       D1     1      1/2     1/4  1/8  1/16  1/32  |  1          3/2       9/4   27/8  81/16  243/32 W0^-1                                    W1^-1   1        0       0    0     0     0  |  1            0         0      0      0       0   0        1       0    0     0     0  |  0            1         0      0      0       0   0       -2       1    0     0     0  |  0            2         1      0      0       0   0     16/3      -4    1     0     0  |  0         16/5         4      1      0       0   0  -352/21    44/3   -6     1     0  |  0       416/95      52/5      6      1       0   0  2048/35  -384/7   28    -8     1  |  0   32768/6175   2048/95  108/5      8       1   ...                                      ... --------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- G0                                      G1   1        0       0    0     0     0  |  1            0         0      0      0       0   0      1/2       0    0     0     0  |  0          3/2         0      0      0       0   0      1/2     1/4    0     0     0  |  0          3/2       9/4      0      0       0   0        0     1/2  1/8     0     0  |  0            0       9/2   27/8      0       0   0        0     1/4  3/8  1/16     0  |  0            0       9/4   81/8  81/16       0   0        0       0  3/8   1/4  1/32  |  0            0         0   81/8   81/4  243/32   ...                                      ... The additionally interesting thing is, that we get by this column-scaled binomial-matrices for G0 and G1 X = G0 * dV(2) = G1* dV(2/3) Code:X=   1  .  .  .  .   .  .  .   0  1  .  .  .   .  .  .   0  1  1  .  .   .  .  .   0  0  2  1  .   .  .  .   0  0  1  3  1   .  .  .   0  0  0  3  4   1  .  .   0  0  0  1  6   5  1  .   0  0  0  0  4  10  6  1so maybe I have just introduced some triviality. Anyway- this does not (yet?) provide a linear scaling for the half-powers. Perhaps one can find an x->x' substitution, which provides such a linear scaling - but this is only an idea, don't know, whether this is even possible. Gottfried Gottfried Helms, Kassel Gottfried Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 776 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 03/08/2008, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 03/08/2008, 02:12 PM by Gottfried.) Again I didn't see some simplification... Here it is: Code:´  using      g(z)= e z^2 + (1+(p-q)) z    setting    e = (1+(p-q))this is Code:´     g(z)= e z (z +  1) second power of g(z) (not "iterate"!) Code:´   (g(z))^2 = e^2 z^2 (z+1)^2 = e^2 z^2 (c(2,0)z^2 + c(2,1)z + c(2,2) ) where c(a,b) is binomial(a,b) and this gives a binomial-matrix column-shifted accordingly to powers of g. Can we describe the half-iterate from this? Gottfried Helms, Kassel Gottfried Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 776 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 03/08/2008, 04:21 PM (This post was last modified: 03/08/2008, 04:31 PM by Gottfried.) Another problem were now, to find a functional relation between the selection of fixpoints, shifts - and possibly of the startparameter x- , and the result-differences, something like f°h(x) = g0°h(x')" + v(p,h,x) = g1°h(x')" + v(q,h,x) This looks a bit like the correction, that I've to introduce with my infinite alternating series of increasing powertowers, where AU_b(x) = sum(h=0,inf,(-1)^h*expd_b° h(x)) AL_b(x) = sum(h=1,inf,(-1)^h*expd_b°-h(x)) where epxd_b(x) = b^x - 1 the decremented iterated exponential and where I conjectured AU + AL = 0 but actually AU + AL - v(b,x) = 0 Perhaps there is a relation between these problems... Gottfried Helms, Kassel bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,389 Threads: 90 Joined: Aug 2007 03/09/2008, 09:30 PM Gottfried Wrote:I tried to find one e, for which the resulting powerseries are linear scalings of each other, such that g0(x)=c * g1(x) This is possible. Assume again, that, denoting the fixpoints p and q, such that f(x) = x + (x - p) (x - q) Denote also the substitution z = x' = x/e - d and the backsubstitution x" = (x + d)*e Recall, that for a fixpoint p, d and e must be selected that p = e*d If I select Code:´     e0 = 1 + (p-q)    d0=p/e0          // first fixpoint     e1 = 1 + (q-p)    d1=q/e1          // second fixpointthen the resulting G0 and G1-matrices provide the same powerseries with a linear scaling. Ok, short verification: right. Thats indeed interesting. Quote:Anyway- this does not (yet?) provide a linear scaling for the half-powers Yes and thats the critical point here. There is no such law like but at least we have traced back the regular iteration at different fixed points to the regular iteration of different scalings. Does this also work for higher order polynomials? Gottfried Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 776 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 03/14/2008, 02:10 PM (This post was last modified: 03/14/2008, 02:15 PM by Gottfried.) Ok, I've fiddled some days with this case of iteration. Now new information, but lots of paper with interesting graphs... bo198214 Wrote:but at least we have traced back the regular iteration at different fixed points to the regular iteration of different scalings. Does this also work for higher order polynomials? Hmm, I haven't done this, because even if we get the coefficients linearly scaled this does not give obvious and special helpful interesting information when iterated. Also I doubt, that it can be done with higher polynomials - it was just computing a +/- deviance d of same abolute value of a sort of mean-value for the two fixpoints. If we have three or more, like f(x) = x + (x-t0)(x-t1)(x-t2) then in general there are no common d's with same absolute value - so I think, this will be impossible. However, this led me to rethink the formula derived from symbolic eigensystem-decomposition of the b^x-1 - iteration. Written as function of height parameter h it is something like (where u=log(b) and the a_k are functions of x and u, resp are constant for given x and u) which made me fiddle with the derivatives, sums of f(h) with increasing h (again) and so on. If I have news, I'll post it in the tetra-series thread. Gottfried Gottfried Helms, Kassel Gottfried Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 776 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 03/14/2008, 04:41 PM (This post was last modified: 03/14/2008, 06:01 PM by Gottfried.) Well, to not to lose all of the impules that this fiddling gave I'll add some more comments. a) the example function. I considered the next iterate of f(x)=-1/16+x+x^2 f2(x) = x^4 + 2*x^3 + 15/8*x^2 + 7/8*x - 31/256 as base function; this can be rewritten in fixpoint notation f2(x) = x + (x-1/4)(x+1/4)(x -1 + sqrt(15/16)*I)(x -1 - sqrt(15/16)*I) So f2 has four fixpoints, two of them are complex. And to investigate the half-iterate of this would allow to shift by 1/4,1/2, -1+sqrt(15/16)*I, 31/16 and compare the repective solutions. I didn't do this yet, but would be interested in a discussion of this anyway. b) the decremented iterated exponential f(x) = b^x-1 , f°h(x) = f°(h-1)(f(x)). From the reformulation as function of h, where b and x are assumed to be constant, (where u=log(b) and the a_k are functions of x and u, resp are constant for given x and u) gives some ideas concerning moduli and cyclotomic functions; however since the coefficients a are non-integer (surely irrational) I don't see yet serious applications for modulus-considerations. However, for cyclotomic h (abs(h)=1, arg(h)/Pi= rational) this looks, as if the powertowers of cyclotomic heights are periodic with k. Also series of such powertowers should be interesting. Also I'm trying to see, whether this description gives new insights for the inconsistency of the matrix-approach and the serial summation for the alternating tetra-series (of increasing negative heights), but I don't see this so far. Gottfried Gottfried Helms, Kassel Gottfried Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 776 Threads: 121 Joined: Aug 2007 03/14/2008, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 03/14/2008, 07:21 PM by Gottfried.) I should also add a remark, which I've made already. This is the link to the Euler-paper E190 which seem to deal with a false series for logarithm, in the sense: s_a = 1 s_a°(h+1) = a*s_a°h for integer h - which means, this series mimics the logarithm of a^h - for integer h exclusively. This series looks much like the series, which we get if we use the fixpoint-shift and evaluate iterates: exact results with integer heights, false results with algebraic heights. Perhaps its series-inverse is even a closer related series to our tetration-series (as given in the symbolic eigensystem-decomposition), and we are on a false track, when employing the fixpoint-shift. Gottfried Gottfried Helms, Kassel bo198214 Administrator Posts: 1,389 Threads: 90 Joined: Aug 2007 04/29/2008, 08:15 AM Gottfried Wrote:then the resulting G0 and G1-matrices provide the same powerseries with a linear scaling. I just see that this also works for exponentials , if there are two fixed points and then we have . So the development at both fixed points are linear scalings of each other and both scalings of . « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Iteration exercises: f(x)=x^2 - 0.5 ; Fixpoint-irritation... Gottfried 23 45,417 10/20/2017, 08:32 PM Last Post: Gottfried (Again) fixpoint outside Period tommy1729 2 4,491 02/05/2017, 09:42 AM Last Post: tommy1729 Polygon cyclic fixpoint conjecture tommy1729 1 3,676 05/18/2016, 12:26 PM Last Post: tommy1729 The " outside " fixpoint ? tommy1729 0 2,407 03/18/2016, 01:16 PM Last Post: tommy1729 2 fixpoint pairs  tommy1729 0 2,734 02/18/2015, 11:29 PM Last Post: tommy1729  The secondary fixpoint issue. tommy1729 2 5,510 06/15/2014, 08:17 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Simple method for half iterate NOT based on a fixpoint. tommy1729 2 5,262 04/30/2013, 09:33 PM Last Post: tommy1729 2 fixpoint failure tommy1729 1 4,097 11/13/2010, 12:25 AM Last Post: tommy1729 abs f ' (fixpoint) = 0 tommy1729 2 6,411 09/09/2010, 10:13 PM Last Post: tommy1729 [Regular tetration] [Iteration series] norming fixpoint-dependencies Gottfried 11 19,801 08/31/2010, 11:55 PM Last Post: tommy1729

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)