[2014] tommy's theorem sexp ' (z) =/= 0 ? - Printable Version +- Tetration Forum ( https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum)+-- Forum: Tetration and Related Topics ( https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)+--- Forum: Mathematical and General Discussion ( https://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)+--- Thread: [2014] tommy's theorem sexp ' (z) =/= 0 ? ( /showthread.php?tid=890) |

[2014] tommy's theorem sexp ' (z) =/= 0 ? - tommy1729 - 06/17/2014
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 RE: [2014] tommy's theorem sexp ' (z) =/= 0 ? - sheldonison - 06/17/2014
(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,... http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforum/showthread.php?tid=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 |