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
  tommy's simple solution ln^[n](2sinh^[n+x](z)) tommy1729 1 2,343 01/17/2017, 07:21 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Sexp redefined ? Exp^[a]( - 00 ). + question ( TPID 19 ??) tommy1729 0 1,500 09/06/2016, 04:23 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Tommy's matrix method for superlogarithm. tommy1729 0 1,565 05/07/2016, 12:28 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Dangerous limits ... Tommy's limit paradox tommy1729 0 1,807 11/27/2015, 12:36 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Tommy's Gamma trick ? tommy1729 7 5,897 11/07/2015, 01:02 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Tommy triangles tommy1729 1 1,944 11/04/2015, 01:17 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Tommy-Gottfried divisions. tommy1729 0 1,574 10/09/2015, 07:39 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Tommy's hyperlog tommy1729 0 1,633 06/11/2015, 08:23 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
Sad Tommy-Mandelbrot function tommy1729 0 1,855 04/21/2015, 01:02 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  tommy equation tommy1729 3 3,745 03/18/2015, 08:52 AM
Last Post: sheldonison



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)