Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
TPID 4
#1
here i give a ( nonunique short ) proof of TPID 4.

remember that entire taylor series are coo everywhere. ( infinitely differentiable for all finite complex )

let f(z,1) be an entire periodic function with f(0,1)=f(1,1)=1 and period 1.

and f(z,1) is not identically 1 for all z.

we will prove that for complex b with arg(b) <> 0 , the only solution to the equations is f(z,1) * b^z and hence the proof follows.

let k and n be positive integers.

f(0) = 1
f(z+k) = b^k f(z)
f = entire

then

take the derivative of the equation f(z+k) = b^k f(z) on both sides

f ' (z+k) = b^k f ' (z)
again
f '' (z+k) = b^k f '' (z)

and in general

f^(n) (z+k) = b^k f^(n) (z)

hence because of taylors theorem we must conclude

f(z) = f(0) * f(z,1) * b^z in the neighbourhood of 0.

but since f is entire it must be true everywhere and f(0) = 1 hence

f(z) = f(z,1) b^z

for all z.

if arg(b) <> 0 then the period of b^z does not have Re <> 0 and hence b^z is unbounded on the strip.

if f(z) needs to be bounded and b^z is not bounded , this implies that f(z,1) needs to be bounded.

but this is impossible since f(z,1) has a real period and is entire , it must be unbounded on the strip.

( remember f(z,1) =/= 1 everywhere by definition )

the product of two functions unbounded in the same region must be unbounded in that region.



QED

regards

tommy1729

* post has been edited *
Reply
#2
i edited post 1

proof is much better now.

i make a new post to make it clear something changed.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#3
Notice 0 < b^z < oo for finite complex z !

hence since b^z is unbounded to make f(z,1) b^z bounded we need f(z,1) going to 0 near the imaginary limits +/- oo i.

But f(z,1) b^z needs to be entire. And hence (by the above) f(z,1) cannot be entire.

Thus if f(z,1) b^z needs to be entire and f(z,1) goes to oo (f(z,1) goes to oo somewhere because its not entire ) ,we MUST conclude we need points z1 where b^z1 are 0.

But b^z is NEVER 0 in any strip.

This completes and clarfies the proof of post nr. 1.

I see that TPID 4 is still considered unproved in the open questions page.

I hope this post convinces everyone that I did indeed have proven TPID 4.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#4
Im not sure why this is still being ignored.

TPID 4 is imho solved !

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#5
(04/26/2014, 12:24 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Im not sure why this is still being ignored.

TPID 4 is imho solved !

regards

tommy1729
Agreed
Reply
#6
Thank you Smile
Reply
#7
(03/28/2014, 12:04 AM)tommy1729 Wrote: Notice 0 < b^z < oo for finite complex z !

hence since b^z is unbounded to make f(z,1) b^z bounded we need f(z,1) going to 0 near the imaginary limits +/- oo i.

But f(z,1) b^z needs to be entire. And hence (by the above) f(z,1) cannot be entire.

Thus if f(z,1) b^z needs to be entire and f(z,1) goes to oo (f(z,1) goes to oo somewhere because its not entire ) ,we MUST conclude we need points z1 where b^z1 are 0.

But b^z is NEVER 0 in any strip.

I viewed this proof only applied to b^z; that any other solution of b^(z+theta(z)) would be unbounded on the strip, and that's how I interpreted the proof. I didn't view this as a proof relating to Tetration, and I didn't think the OP viewed this as applying to Kneser's tetraton solution, a non-entire function, since tet(z) and sexp(z) are never mentioned in the post. But for b^z, you can multiply by a 1-cyclic function and still have a solution to b^z, so I interpreted the OP as intending this post to only apply to b^z. You can't multiply tet(z) by a 1-cyclic function and get an alternative solution to tet(z). But maybe I'm missing something.
- Sheldon
Reply
#8
Indeed it applies to all real-analytic superfunctions !

For clarity its a uniqueness proof , not an existance proof.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#9
(06/15/2014, 06:35 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Indeed it applies to all real-analytic superfunctions !
How so? Here is an entire 1-cyclic function.

unless theta(z)=1 everywhere

But if you replace tet(z) with b^z, then it works, so that's how I interpreted the Op's proof, given that the proof never mentioned superfunctions or anything like that.

for any entire theta(z) function

- Sheldon
Reply
#10
(06/15/2014, 06:42 PM)sheldonison Wrote:
(06/15/2014, 06:35 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Indeed it applies to all real-analytic superfunctions !
How so? Here is an entire 1-cyclic function.

unless theta(z)=1 everywhere

But if you replace tet(z) with b^z, then it works, so that's how I interpreted the Op's proof, given that the proof never mentioned superfunctions or anything like that.

for any entire theta(z) function

z + theta(z) takes on all values in the strip -1=<Re(z)=<1 apart from possibly one value.
This follows from picard's little theorem and the periodicity of theta(z).

So since in the strip we take on all complex values (apart from 1 possible value) it follows that the range of sexp in that strip is the same range as sexp.

since the range of sexp is unbounded , than so is the range of sexp(strip).

Q.e.d.

The similarity with the unboundedness of the theta in the OP is striking.

Hope that clarifies.

regards

tommy1729
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sexp redefined ? Exp^[a]( - 00 ). + question ( TPID 19 ??) tommy1729 0 1,397 09/06/2016, 04:23 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Flexible etas and eulers ? TPID 10 tommy1729 0 1,277 08/19/2016, 12:09 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  (almost) proof of TPID 13 fivexthethird 1 2,041 05/06/2016, 04:12 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  introducing TPID 16 tommy1729 4 4,693 06/18/2014, 11:46 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  TPID 8 tommy1729 0 1,767 04/04/2011, 10:45 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Discussion of TPID 6 JJacquelin 3 5,756 10/24/2010, 07:44 AM
Last Post: bo198214
  Another proof of TPID 6 tommy1729 0 1,964 07/25/2010, 11:51 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  proof: Limit of self-super-roots is e^1/e. TPID 6 bo198214 3 6,707 07/10/2010, 09:13 AM
Last Post: bo198214



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)