Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Doubts on the domains of Nixon's method.
#1
[Edited massively to fix MANY errors and typos: I hope it is more readable now. I apologize.]

This follows from the discussion held at: MphLee, Generalized Kneser superfunction trick (the iterated limit definition), (January 21, 2021), Tetration Forum


Quote:Can we write,

So that is say, a diffeomorphism (I believe that's the word, if not; it's something like that) of . Just so my shallow brain can think of a representative of the category; and it's not all up in the air. Let's additionally assume that:

For some constants . Which will make the exponential convergents behave well.  And it would imply it's inverse at worse grows like somethin' somethin'. This would be a perfectly good algebraic space where we could derive,

Now I haven't proven that, not entirely sure how to, but it's manageable--I could probably prove something close enough to continue the discussion.  ( JmsNxn , 28 January 2021)

What you describe is "just" a group, i.e. a very poor category that has only one object () and s.t. every morphism is invertible. [note 1] Working on that we may try to extend the reasoning to the category of differential manifolds... this is good and bad. Bad because it is extremely complex. Good because it is an overdeveloped field of research, old and very relevant physics... ergo if we set up the right starting point/dictionary we might be able to recover everything in the existing literature [note 2].


Observations and doubts:
you are taking the group of diffeomorphisms of : I'm very shaky on this, but I don't know if is a differential manifold. Let's admit it is. It is an object of the category "" of differential manifolds and what you are describing is the group of automorphisms of in that category:


Quick review. An endomorphism is a morphism whose domain and codomain coincide. An automorphism is an endomorphism that is an isomorphism.
By definition, being an isomorphism (e.g. in the cat. ) means that there exists an inverse that is still in the category (e.g. continuous). In our case let be a continuous function. Being an isomorphism in (cat. of top. spaces) is a stronger condition than just being bijective: MUST be continuous too. If it is, they (the mathematicians) call an homeomorphism. There are categories where a homomorphism in can be bijective as a set-theoretic map but its inverse do not respect the structure failing therefore to be an iso in that particular category . An example I heard of is the map that maps : it is bijective (iso in ) but not a homeomorphism (not iso) in .

To be a -Diffeomorphims for a function means that it is differentiable (), it is invertible, and its inverse is also differentiable (): it is an iso in the category .

What are you doing? You consider the set/monoid . It is not a group because it contains non invertible functions. Subsequently you take the subset of bijective ones. Not all of them but just the ones that have a inverse: briefly, you consider the group of -diffeomorphisms. You continue by restricting to the subset of diffeomorphisms s.t. .


On this point I have four, very ignorant, questions for you.

  1. Is really a manifold? How do we define an atlas of charts on ?
    The problem I see is that is open in with subspace topology... but how we would define a homeomorphims from that open to an open of some Euclidean space (, )? Should we consider instead ?   

  2. why is the non-zero derivative condition necessary?
    I mean that if is a diffeomorphism then . I don't know how to prove it but, in my mind, if the derivative becomes zero at then the inverse at the point should have a vertical slope, making ... not good (not continuous/differentiable!?);   

  3. if is a diffemorphism then is necessarily a fixed point?
    If is and the derivative is nowhere zero then it has to be strictly increasing or decreasing right?
    If it is so then all functions in have a fixed point at : let and increasing, where is the pre-image supposed to be located? The function has a zero somewhere, say in the point . The function must be increasing in the interval and bounded by so it has to have an horizontal asymptote and a vertical asymptote at . Contradiction: cannot be on . The same goes for the decreasing case.
    I know this is not a proof. I hope you can make it formal or explain to me where my intuition is off. Anyways this would produce fatal consequences for our needs. If all the fix then the successor or are not in our space and we can not consider the superfunction equations in it;   

  4. let be the subset of that are exponentially bounded.

    Is still closed under composition? It doesn't seem so. Exponentiation is in the space but its iterates seem to be outside. Assume for the sake of argument that it is closed: scaling by is in our space. By you closure proposition a Schroeder function of is in the space, i. e. a solution to

    It could in principle because it grows slowly enough (?). In that case, since the logarithm must be in our space, an Abel function of exp will be in there as well (). Contradiction! Its inverse tetration can't. We conclude that can't be a group.

Sorry for the naive questions. I'm very limited in this field but probably these problems constitute partially the reason that induced you to add that

Quote:    [t]he trouble I see with this space is that the super function of will not exist here . I don't envy you if you're trying to create a general structure to where the superfunction sits. (JmsNxn, 06 February 2021)

Could you try to make more precise your closure statement grounded on the stable knowledge of your papers? For example it seems to me that your statement should be something more like this.


I don't know if (smooth) or (analytic).
Can you confirm or make the details precise?




[note 1]

Even without extending it to categories I believe that we can find a lot of work on those groups. To express this in a very inaccuarate way: the kind of "closure theorem" you propose is equivalent, if we ignore the exp bound condition, to this one

"The group has only one conjugacy class."

I'll explain better this conceptual link in the post I'm prepairing but this is a specific case of "congugacy problem": when we study Real -flows we are indirectly studying the structure of conjugacy class of a group of diffeomorphisms.

[note 2]
To somehow prove that I'm not having hallucinations here two promising references that are taking it from this point of view.

O'Farrell, Roginskaya, Conjugacy of real diffeomorphisms, A suvery, 2010


This last one approaches the problem of approximating the solution by a sequence (or a path) of diffeomorphisms $\phi_n$ ($\phi_x$) converging to the (not exactly) superfunction.
MathStackExchange account:MphLee
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Doubts on the domains of Nixon's method. - by MphLee - 02/27/2021, 11:03 AM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  A different approach to the base-change method JmsNxn 0 204 03/17/2021, 11:15 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  A support for Andy's (P.Walker's) slog-matrix-method Gottfried 4 3,660 03/08/2021, 07:13 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Nixon-Banach-Lambert-Raes tetration is analytic , simple and “ closed form “ !! tommy1729 11 1,620 02/04/2021, 03:47 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  My interpolation method [2020] tommy1729 1 1,923 02/20/2020, 08:40 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Kneser method question tommy1729 9 7,378 02/11/2020, 01:26 AM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Half-iterates and periodic stuff , my mod method [2019] tommy1729 0 1,588 09/09/2019, 10:55 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  2 fixpoints , 1 period --> method of iteration series tommy1729 0 2,844 12/21/2016, 01:27 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Tommy's matrix method for superlogarithm. tommy1729 0 2,833 05/07/2016, 12:28 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  [split] Understanding Kneser Riemann method andydude 7 13,203 01/13/2016, 10:58 PM
Last Post: sheldonison
  Kouznetsov-Tommy-Cauchy method tommy1729 0 3,134 02/18/2015, 07:05 PM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)