03/30/2008, 06:41 PM

I have been playing with iterations of

And of course I tried and

is not very interesting, it converges to 2 values depending on integer iteration number. Here are picture of 200 iterations:

[attachment=283]

is more interesting. This iteration converges to 4 values for each x, cyclicaly,and their dependance on n is shifting depending the region x is in the interval ]0:1[. The convergence values are :

Here is what happens:

[attachment=284]

[attachment=287]

When resolution is increased (step decreased) more and more shifts in phase happen in the region which seems to converge to approximately 0,6529204....

[attachment=285]

[attachment=286]

This number has properties:

So its 2nd selfroot is , while its reciprocal 1,531580266.. is 3rd superroot of e.

It has also following properties, at least approximately numerically, so it might be wrong, but interesting:

if we denote it , than:

So:

........

..........

if this is so, what happens if instead of integer n we take x, so that:

maybe:

I hope I used [4Left] correctly. So:

and

If accuracy is not enough, so it is numerically only 3-4 digits, perhaps going for n-th superroot of e would improve situation?

Probably this is old knowledge.

Ivars

And of course I tried and

is not very interesting, it converges to 2 values depending on integer iteration number. Here are picture of 200 iterations:

[attachment=283]

is more interesting. This iteration converges to 4 values for each x, cyclicaly,and their dependance on n is shifting depending the region x is in the interval ]0:1[. The convergence values are :

Here is what happens:

[attachment=284]

[attachment=287]

When resolution is increased (step decreased) more and more shifts in phase happen in the region which seems to converge to approximately 0,6529204....

[attachment=285]

[attachment=286]

This number has properties:

So its 2nd selfroot is , while its reciprocal 1,531580266.. is 3rd superroot of e.

It has also following properties, at least approximately numerically, so it might be wrong, but interesting:

if we denote it , than:

So:

........

..........

if this is so, what happens if instead of integer n we take x, so that:

maybe:

I hope I used [4Left] correctly. So:

and

If accuracy is not enough, so it is numerically only 3-4 digits, perhaps going for n-th superroot of e would improve situation?

Probably this is old knowledge.

Ivars