Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Uniqueness of half-iterate of exp(x) ?
#1
I was dreaming about uniqueness for a half-iterate of exp(x).
And what other properties it might have.

Let f ( f (x) ) = exp(x) where f (x) and f ' (x) are continu and increasing for all real x.

Define L1 as the limit for x -> +oo :

L1 = lim L2(x) / (a(x)+b(x))

where a(x) = x + f (x) , b(x) = sqrt(f (x)^2 + x^2)

and L2(x) = integral sqrt ( 1 + f ' (x)^2) dx where the integral goes from 0 to x.

The conjectured uniqueness is the lowest possible value for L1.

Thus let L be the lowest possible value for L1.

Then L = L1 and L has a unique function f (x) associated with it.
Reply
#2
This minimal length idea lead to conjecture L

if f is minimal length then so is f^^n.
Reply
#3
To support conjecture L it might be a good exercise to prove that exp(x) is the shortest lenght solution to the half-iterate of exp(exp(x)).

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#4
f(x) can be found in terms of the Lambert W function. I haven't been able to find this anywhere else so I'm not sure if I discovered it (highly unlikely, I know) or re-discovered it.

Anyways...
Let's say f is of the following form,


Then the original definition becomes


Taking natural log of both sides,


which, by definition, can also be written as


Perhaps someone can verify that I'm using the W function properly, as I'm rather new to applying it. There isn't a closed-form expression for W as far as I know, so perhaps writing f(x) in this way doesn't actually answer any of your questions.

EDIT: So I just noticed that I posted this somewhere else on the forum several months back. Sorry about the double-post! I completely for got about it, but I guess I never did find out why it doesn't work (if that is indeed the case).
Reply
#5
(05/08/2014, 12:57 AM)hixidom Wrote: which, by definition, can also be written as

Hmm, I get the following using Pari/GP:
Code:
x0=1.0
%1876 = 1.00000000000

x1=exp(x0)
%1877 = 2.71828182846

x05 = x0^2/LW(x0^2)
%1878 = 1.76322283435

x05^2/LW(x05^2)
%1879 = 2.91030427217

Perhaps some cofactor could improve the formula?

Gottfried

Gottfried Helms, Kassel
Reply
#6
Or maybe it's just plain wrong. A test using Matlab suggests that the f(x) I provided is not the solution. That's so weird; It seemed airtight to me, but there must be some pathology in my derivation. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of the W function can spot it for me.
Code:
x=(.5:.01:3);
f=@(x)exp(lambertw(x.^2));
for i=1:numel(x);
    ffx(i)=f(f(x(i)));
end
figure(1);
clf();
plot(x,exp(x),x,ffx)
Reply
#7
(05/08/2014, 07:31 AM)hixidom Wrote: Or maybe it's just plain wrong. A test using Matlab suggests that the f(x) I provided is not the solution. That's so weird; It seemed airtight to me, but there must be some pathology in my derivation. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of the W function can spot it for me.
Code:
x=(.5:.01:3);
f=@(x)exp(lambertw(x.^2));
for i=1:numel(x);
    ffx(i)=f(f(x(i)));
end
figure(1);
clf();
plot(x,exp(x),x,ffx)
Well, I meant that something possibly similar like the cofactor in my older posting http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...hp?tid=785 which I didn't see myself and did not spoil the formula but was needed to explain/correct the result. Perhaps something like this can be introduced into your formula as well to make it working...

Gottfried
Gottfried Helms, Kassel
Reply
#8
Perhaps, but why would it be necessary? Anyways, my solution seems to be off by more than a cofactor. I've tried several other functions as cofactors as well, but none seem to produce a satisfactory result.
   

Your derivation in the other thread is really cool, by the way.
Reply
#9
(05/08/2014, 07:31 AM)hixidom Wrote: Or maybe it's just plain wrong. A test using Matlab suggests that the f(x) I provided is not the solution. That's so weird; It seemed airtight to me, but there must be some pathology in my derivation. Hopefully someone with a better understanding of the W function can spot it for me.

I think the problem is that b is not a constant. It is a function of x. That's where the math goes wrong:

(05/08/2014, 12:57 AM)hixidom Wrote: Let's say f is of the following form,


Then the original definition becomes

The first equation should be written:


Then your second equation becomes:


But this is incorrect. The correct expansion is thus:


From there, the rest of the derivation is wrong.

BTW, it looked suspicious to me at first, because I knew b wasn't constant, but otherwise the derivation looked good, so I couldn't spot the error right away.
~ Jay Daniel Fox
Reply
#10
(05/08/2014, 07:04 PM)jaydfox Wrote: I think the problem is that b is not a constant. It is a function of x. That's where the math goes wrong:

The first equation should be written:

Hmm, now that I think about it, you really can treat b as a constant. From your derivation, one of the steps is:

(05/08/2014, 12:57 AM)hixidom Wrote:

Given a value of x, we can solve for b:



For example, if we let x = 1, then we find b=0.567143290409784
Then we validate:

let x = 1
let b = 0.567143290409784
exp(b*exp(b*x)) = 2.718... = exp(1)


As another example, let x=3. Then we find that b=0.559672139928533

Putting it together, exp(b*exp(b*x))=20.0855369231877 = exp(3)

So it works. The problem is, the value of b will vary with each value of x. If we make b constant, then it will only work for a small set of values of x (possibly a single value of x). Otherwise, we have to make b a function of x, and then the derivation does not work, as I previously pointed out.

~ Jay Daniel Fox
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Half-iterates and periodic stuff , my mod method [2019] tommy1729 0 84 09/09/2019, 10:55 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Approximation to half-iterate by high indexed natural iterates (base on ShlThrb) Gottfried 1 203 09/09/2019, 10:50 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Does tetration take the right half plane to itself? JmsNxn 7 5,239 05/16/2017, 08:46 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Half-iteration of x^(n^2) + 1 tommy1729 3 3,584 03/09/2017, 10:02 PM
Last Post: Xorter
  A conjectured uniqueness criteria for analytic tetration Vladimir Reshetnikov 13 9,919 02/17/2017, 05:21 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Removing the branch points in the base: a uniqueness condition? fivexthethird 0 1,381 03/19/2016, 10:44 AM
Last Post: fivexthethird
  [AIS] (alternating) Iteration series: Half-iterate using the AIS? Gottfried 33 34,980 03/27/2015, 11:28 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  [2014] Uniqueness of periodic superfunction tommy1729 0 1,760 11/09/2014, 10:20 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  irrational iterate of 2z(1-z) BenStandeven 2 4,233 08/09/2014, 10:16 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Real-analytic tetration uniqueness criterion? mike3 25 19,388 06/15/2014, 10:17 PM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)