Posts: 20
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2014
05/08/2014, 07:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 05/08/2014, 08:11 PM by hixidom.)
Ahhh. Thank you. That makes a lot of sense. I assume b is a constant, then I solve for b as a function of x! I am pretty dense.
Anyways, here's something else I found that may be of use,
Let's say that .
Then by definition
Now substitute g(x) for x,
So, in conclusion, the halfiterate of e^x is the exponential of the halfiterate of ln(x).
Not sure if that is useful but I think it's kinda neat. Hopefully I didn't make another mistake, but it's always possible.
Posts: 90
Threads: 29
Joined: Aug 2016
01/07/2017, 11:00 PM
(This post was last modified: 01/07/2017, 11:02 PM by Xorter.
Edit Reason: wrong tex
)
Hello!
I found an interesting site about the Carleman matrix: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleman_matrix
And the most important of this case:
M[fog] = M[f] M[g]
So these matrices convert composition to matrix multiplication.
Thus
Therefor
So we get the M[exp(x)], it was the easy part of the thing. We need to get the squered root of this matrix, and I could find a program for it: http://calculator.vhex.net/calculator/li...quareroot
And I got another matrix, which satisfies that:
So the function is:
But it is not the halfiterate of exp(x), Could you help me why not, please? What was my mistake?
Xorter Unizo
Posts: 764
Threads: 118
Joined: Aug 2007
01/08/2017, 01:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 01/15/2017, 10:14 PM by Gottfried.
Edit Reason: added information
)
(01/07/2017, 11:00 PM)Xorter Wrote: Hello!
I found an interesting site about the Carleman matrix: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleman_matrix
(...)
So these matrices convert composition to matrix multiplication.
Thus
Therefor
So we get the M[exp(x)], it was the easy part of the thing. We need to get the squered root of this matrix, and I could find a program for it: http://calculator.vhex.net/calculator/li...quareroot
And I got another matrix, which satisfies that:
So the function is:
But it is not the halfiterate of exp(x), Could you help me why not, please? What was my mistake?
Well, using the truncated series of the exp(x)function up to 16 terms (Carlemanmatrixsize) I get, using my own routine for matrixsquareroot in Pari/GP with arbitrary numerical precision (here 200 decimal digits for internal computation) , the following truncated seriesapproximation:
This gives, for eight correct digits when applying this two times (and should approximate Sheldon's Kneserimplementation).
The reason, why your function is badly misshaped might be: matrix is too small (did you only take size 4x4?) and/or the matrixsquarerootcomputation is not optimal.
To crosscheck: one simple approach to the matrixsquareroot is the "Newtoniteration".
Let M be the original Carlemanmatrix and N denote its approximated squareroot
initialize ...
iterate ...
.
until convergence .
Unfortunately, the matrix N shall not be "Carleman" unless M were of infinite size; nitpicking this means, the function with coefficients taken from the second row (or in my version:column) is not really well suited for iteration. (But this problem has not yet been discussed systematically here in the forum, to my best knowledge)
Gottfried
Gottfried Helms, Kassel
Posts: 90
Threads: 29
Joined: Aug 2016
(01/08/2017, 01:31 AM)Gottfried Wrote: Well, using the truncated series of the exp(x)function up to 16 terms (Carlemanmatrixsize) I get, using my own routine for matrixsquareroot in Pari/GP with arbitrary numerical precision (here 200 decimal digits for internal computation) , the following truncated seriesapproximation:
This gives, for eight correct digits when applying this two times (and should approximate Sheldon's Kneserimplementation).
The reason, why your function is badly misshaped might be: matrix is too small (did you only take size 4x4?) and/or the matrixsquarerootcomputation is not optimal.
To crosscheck: one simple approach to the matrixsquareroot is the "Newtoniteration".
Let M be the original Carlemanmatrix and N denote its approximated squareroot
initialize ...
iterate ...
until convergence .
Unfortunately, the matrix N shall not be "Carleman" unless M were of infinite size; nitpicking this means, the function with coefficients taken from the second row (or in my version:column) is not really well suited for iteration. (But this problem has not yet been discussed systematically here in the forum, to my best knowledge)
Gottfried
Did I take size 4x4? No, of course not, It was 20x20 later 84x84.
I made and recognised my mistake: I generate wrong Carleman matrix instead of M[exp(x)]_i,j = i^j/j!.
Now I regenerate the matrix and I got approximately the same solution.
It works, yuppie!
Thank you very much.
Could you tell me what you wrote into pari to calculate it out, please? I am not so good at pari codes.
Xorter Unizo
Posts: 764
Threads: 118
Joined: Aug 2007
01/09/2017, 02:41 AM
(This post was last modified: 01/09/2017, 03:10 AM by Gottfried.)
Here is Pari/GP  code
Code: default(realprecision,200) \\ increase internal precision to 800 digits or higher when matrixsize more than, say, 64 ...
default(format,"g0.12") \\ only 12 digits for display of float numbers
dim=16 \\ increase later, when everything works, but stay less then, say, 128
M = matrix(dim,dim,r,c,(c1)^(r1)/(r1)!) \\ carlemanmatrix, transposed, seriescoefficients along a column!
M=1.0*M \\it is better to have floatvalues in M otherwise the numberofdigits in N explodes over iterations
N = matid(dim)
N = (M * N^1 + N) / 2
N = (M * N^1 + N) / 2
N = (M * N^1 + N) / 2
/* ... do this a couple of times to get convergence; careful: not too often to avoid numerical errors/overflow*/
/* note, N's expected property of being Carlemantype shall be heavily distorted. */
M  N*N \\ check for sanity, the difference should be near zero
/* define the function; */
exp05(x) = sum(k=1,dim, x^k * N[k,2]) \\ only for x in interval with good convergence (0<=x<1 )
/* try, 6 to eight digits might be correct when dim is at least 32 x32 /*
x0 = 0
x05 = exp05(x0) \\ this should be the halfiterate about 0.498692160537
x1 = exp05(x05) \\ this should be the full iterate and equal exp(x0)=1 and is about 1.00012482606
x1  exp(x0) \\ check error
Example. With dim=8 I got after 8 iterations for N:
Code: N=
1.00000000000 0.498692160537 0.248258284527 0.123313067961 0.0613783517169 0.0309705773951 0.0161518156415 0.00900178983873
0 0.876328584414 0.875668009082 0.651057846300 0.427494354197 0.262472285853 0.155983031832 0.0925625176728
0 0.246718723415 1.01708995680 1.34271949385 1.26030722116 0.991600974872 0.698202964055 0.456331269934
0 0.0248938874134 0.453724180460 1.35543926159 2.03890540259 2.20219490711 1.93455428276 1.45660923676
0 0.000559114024252 0.101207623371 0.716292108758 1.94548221867 3.15424069454 3.69849457008 3.40094743897
0 0.000132927042876 0.0119615040464 0.219667721568 1.11333664588 2.97146364527 5.09318298067 6.20122030134
0 0.0000114543791108 0.00113904404837 0.0431682924811 0.396012087313 1.78179566161 5.01623097009 9.19538628629
0 0.00000540376918712 0.000111767358395 0.00661697871499 0.0933915529553 0.665946396103 3.15521910471 11.3987254320
Of course, to make this more flexible for varying fractional powers of M you'll need diagonalization  but then the required "realprecision" becomes exorbitant for dim=32 and more. For reference, I call this method the "polynomial method" because by the matrix being of finite size this is a polynomial approximation and no attempt is done to produce N in a way, that it basically maintains the structure of a Carlemanmatrix when fractional powers are computed. If this is wanted, the conjugacy using the complex fixpoint is needed before the diagonalization and the generation of a power series with complex coefficients to have the famous Schröderfunction by the eigenvectorsmatrices. After that, Sheldon has the method to proceed backwards to a realtoreal solution after H. Kneser (which seems to be possibly the limit of the above construction when the matrix size goes to infinity).
Gottfried
Gottfried Helms, Kassel
