Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[2014] tommy's theorem sexp ' (z) =/= 0 ?
#1
Let sexp(z) be a solution that is analytic in the entire complex plane apart from z=-2,-3,-4,...

if w is a (finite) nonreal complex number such that

sexp ' (w) = 0

then it follows that for real k>0 :

sexp ' (w+k) = 0.

Proof : chain rule

exp^[k] is analytic :

sexp(w+k) = exp^[k](sexp(w))

sexp ' (w+k) = exp^[k] ' (sexp(w)) * sexp ' (w) = 0


Hence we get a contradiction : sexp is not nonpolynomial analytic near w (or w + k).
Conclusion there is no w such that sexp'(w) = 0.

Consequences : since 0 < sexp ' (z) < oo

slog ' (z) is also 0 < slog ' (z) < oo

since exp^[k](v) = sexp(slog(v)+k)

D exp^[k](v) = sexp ' (slog(v)+k) * slog ' (v) = nonzero * nonzero = nonzero..

=> 0 < exp^[k] ' (z) < oo

Tommy's theorem


Strongly related to the TPID 4 thread and some recent conjectures of sheldon.

the analogue difference is not understood yet.
(posted that already)


regards

tommy1729
Reply
#2
(06/17/2014, 12:18 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Let sexp(z) be a solution that is analytic in the entire complex plane apart from z=-2,-3,-4,...

if w is a (finite) nonreal complex number such that

sexp ' (w) = 0

then it follows that for real k>0 :

sexp ' (w+k) = 0.

Proof : chain rule

exp^[k] is analytic :

sexp(w+k) = exp^[k](sexp(w))

sexp ' (w+k) = exp^[k] ' (sexp(w)) * sexp ' (w) = 0
....
Hence we get a contradiction : sexp is not nonpolynomial analytic near w (or w + k).
Conclusion there is no w such that sexp'(w) = 0.

http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...452&page=2 see post#19 and post#20, for the Taylor series of an sexp(z) function with first and second derivatives, sexp'(n)=0 and sexp''(n)=0, for all integers n>-2. This is sexp(z) from the secondary fixed point, analytic in the upper and lower halves of the complex plane. Where the derivative of sexp(x)=0, the slog(z) inverse has a cuberoot(0) branch singularity.

The flaw in your proof is that k is an integer, but you state k as a real number. "sexp ' (w+k) = exp^[k] ' (sexp(w)) * sexp ' (w) = 0". For k as a fraction, the chain rule does not apply. A simple counter example to your proof is f(z), which has f'(n)=0 and f''(n)=0 for all integers>-2.



As a side note, has a cube root branch singularity for n>=0, at . This is relevant since the exp^k(z) function used in the flawed proof is
- Sheldon
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Some "Theorem" on the generalized superfunction Leo.W 59 18,023 09/18/2022, 11:05 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tommy's group addition isomo conjecture tommy1729 1 77 09/16/2022, 12:25 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tommy's displacement equation tommy1729 1 69 09/16/2022, 12:24 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  semi-group homomorphism and tommy's U-tetration tommy1729 5 248 08/12/2022, 08:14 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  " tommy quaternion " tommy1729 30 8,860 07/04/2022, 10:58 PM
Last Post: Catullus
  Tommy's Gaussian method. tommy1729 34 9,960 06/28/2022, 02:23 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tommy's new conjecture/theorem/idea (2022) ?? tommy1729 0 179 06/22/2022, 11:49 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Revitalizing an old idea : estimated fake sexp'(x) = F3(x) tommy1729 0 461 02/27/2022, 10:17 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tommy beta method tommy1729 0 664 12/09/2021, 11:48 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tommy's singularity theorem and connection to kneser and gaussian method tommy1729 2 1,360 09/20/2021, 04:29 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)