• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 fake id(x) for better 2sinh method. tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,419 Threads: 345 Joined: Feb 2009 05/20/2014, 12:27 PM For improving the 2sinh method so that it works for all bases > eta and other improvements I consider : 2sinh(fake id(x)) fake id(x) behaves like e/2 x for small x, like x for large real and like 0 for large imaginary part. SO what is the best fake id(x) ? Remember we only want a single fixpoint (2sinh(fake id(x))=x) for any base. maybe id(x) = exp(fakelog(x)) ... Thinking... regards tommy1729 tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,419 Threads: 345 Joined: Feb 2009 06/04/2014, 10:14 PM There is a problem with this particular type of fake function. Although it may be fixed as stated in post 1 it seems a big problem. Perhaps the biggest problem of " fake function theory ". id(x) as desired in post nr 1 : " fake id(x) behaves like e/2 x for small x, like x for large real and like 0 for large imaginary part " is in contradiction with the well known Lindelöf theorem. It seems the natural fix is : " fake id(z) behaves like e/2 z for small z and like z for large z " regards tommy1729 tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,419 Threads: 345 Joined: Feb 2009 06/04/2014, 10:33 PM Hmm this new id(z) also seems in trouble because id(z) -z goes to 0 for large z ... but stays bounded for small z : so id(z) - z is not entire. So maybe use a function that grows like exp(x) near the real line and grows like z otherwise ? Notice if id(z) is not entire , then neither is id(exp(z)) or even id(fakeexp(z)). Hmm. Seems really an issue. regards tommy1729 tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,419 Threads: 345 Joined: Feb 2009 06/04/2014, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 06/04/2014, 11:16 PM by tommy1729.) Wait a sec , it seems carlson's theorem applies here ! id(z) must grow fast enough otherwise id(z) - z is "close" to 0 for integer z , hence to avoid id(z) being flat it seems id(z) must grow fast enough in the imaginary direction. The problem is " close " is not the exact condition of the theorem (exactly 0 is). To make ln(id(z)/z) an entire function this also suggests id(z) is of exp type. Hence I write id(z) = z exp(t(z)) where t(z) is a taylor series. Now id(z)/z IS NEVER ALLOWED TO BE EQUAL TO 1. and exp(t(x)) for real x is a fake id(1) function. Thus t(x) is a fake id(0) function. However saying t(z) = id(z) - z brings us back to the Original problem ... Hmm. This is getting stranger by the sec. Maybe t(z) should be a fake id(0) for reals and a fake exp^[1/2](z) in the upper half plane ( in terms of absolute value ). But that brings us back again to carlson so I guess its better to have f(z) = fake id(0) around the real axis. f(z) = fake exp(z) near the imag axis. I finally see less objections. But what is f(z) ? regards tommy1729 tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,419 Threads: 345 Joined: Feb 2009 06/04/2014, 11:21 PM (This post was last modified: 06/04/2014, 11:24 PM by tommy1729.) (06/04/2014, 11:10 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Now id(z)/z IS NEVER ALLOWED TO BE EQUAL TO 1. and exp(t(x)) for real x is a fake id(1) function. This is still a big objection. so exp(t(z)) is not allowed to be 0 nor 1. This violates the little picard theorem. Hmm Seems all theorems of complex analysis are against me ! regards tommy1729 tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow Posts: 1,419 Threads: 345 Joined: Feb 2009 06/05/2014, 08:21 AM A good id(z) has been found ! id(z)/z = 1 sometimes but that is no big problem. id(z) = z * fake(1) on the real line id(z) = z * fake(exp(exp(i z))^O(z)) on the imag line. id(z) is of the type z * f(z i) where f(z i) is similar too $f(z i)=\int_0^\infty \frac{e^{zt i}}{t^t}\mathrm{d}t$ Yes the same function that occured in the fake exp^[1/2] thread. It seems " fake function theory " is developping fast. regards tommy1729 « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post A different approach to the base-change method JmsNxn 0 152 03/17/2021, 11:15 PM Last Post: JmsNxn A support for Andy's (P.Walker's) slog-matrix-method Gottfried 4 3,542 03/08/2021, 07:13 PM Last Post: JmsNxn Doubts on the domains of Nixon's method. MphLee 1 303 03/02/2021, 10:43 PM Last Post: JmsNxn My interpolation method [2020] tommy1729 1 1,860 02/20/2020, 08:40 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Kneser method question tommy1729 9 7,173 02/11/2020, 01:26 AM Last Post: sheldonison Half-iterates and periodic stuff , my mod method [2019] tommy1729 0 1,547 09/09/2019, 10:55 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy's simple solution ln^[n](2sinh^[n+x](z)) tommy1729 1 4,262 01/17/2017, 07:21 AM Last Post: sheldonison 2 fixpoints , 1 period --> method of iteration series tommy1729 0 2,796 12/21/2016, 01:27 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy's matrix method for superlogarithm. tommy1729 0 2,794 05/07/2016, 12:28 PM Last Post: tommy1729 2sinh^[r](z) = 0 ?? tommy1729 0 2,190 02/23/2016, 11:13 PM Last Post: tommy1729

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)