Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The fermat superfunction
#1
Let f(x) = (x-1)^2 + 1.
If we want the half-iterate of f(x) for x>1 we can use
S(S^[-1](x)+1/2) where S is the superfunction of f(x).

For x>2 this superfunction is F(x) = 2^(2^x) + 1.
Hence I call that the fermat superfunction.

This fermat superfunction F(x) is entire so there are no other branches.

F^[-1] does have branches though but they are easy to understand.

Notice F(x) = 1 has no complex solution.
( 1 is the other fixpoint of f(x) )
But what do we do for the other nonparabolic fixpoint of f(x) ? What superfunction belongs there ?

Is this related to branches of F^[-1] ?

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#2
f(x) = x has 2 solutions : 1 and 2.

The superfunction F(x) is entire and has the fixpoint (of f(x)) 1 @ complex infinity.

Also the other fixpoint 2 occurs for F(x) at - oo.

so everything seems to work out nicely.

But it might be deception !

F(x) = 2
<=> 2^(2^x) +1 = 2
<=> 2^(2^x) = 1

This has MANY solutions.
And that fact seems to make life hard.
We cannot blame singularities now since F(x) is ENTIRE !

Does this imply that F(x) is pseudoperiodic or something ? Or does the functional equation fail ? Both seem to weird to be true.

Now f(x) has 2 fixpoints. So maybe we need 2 superfunctions ?
One seems entire , but to what fixpoint does it belong ?
How does the other superfunction behave ?

What about those methods where we use 2 fixpoints such as the analytic sickel between two fixpoints based on fatou ?

This seems to be as puzzling as tetration itself , hence like I said this is imho " deception ". It is more complicated then it looks.

Seems having the entire property does not solve all issues !

Keep in mind that an answer like " oh thats just because of the log branches " is not a " real " answer.

I was aware of this for a long time but I was waiting for a response to my first post. Since it did not come I felt the need to explain more.
Maybe you agree on the opinion that this is a serious important topic now.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#3
(03/23/2014, 12:15 AM)tommy1729 Wrote: f(x) = x has 2 solutions : 1 and 2.

The superfunction F(x) is entire and has the fixpoint (of f(x)) 1 @ +/- oo i.

Also the other fixpoint 2 occurs for F(x) at - oo.

so everything seems to work out nicely.

But it might be deception !

F(x) = 2
<=> 2^(2^x) +1 = 2
<=> 2^(2^x) = 1

This has MANY solutions.
And that fact seems to make life hard.
We cannot blame singularities now since F(x) is ENTIRE !

Yes, there exist other points where . But this doesn't mean there are additional regular superfunctions beyond the 2, as has only 2 fixed points, and the number of regular superfunctions depends on the number of fixed points of , not the number of times attains the value of a fixed point.

(03/23/2014, 12:15 AM)tommy1729 Wrote: Does this imply that F(x) is pseudoperiodic or something ? Or does the functional equation fail ? Both seem to weird to be true.

No, neither -- in fact is periodic with imaginary period since that is the period of . You can check the functional equation holds by simply plugging into .

(03/23/2014, 12:15 AM)tommy1729 Wrote: Now f(x) has 2 fixpoints. So maybe we need 2 superfunctions ?
One seems entire , but to what fixpoint does it belong ?
How does the other superfunction behave ?

Yes, there will be another superfunction at the fixed point . The Fermat superfunction is for the fixed point , as can be seen by evaluating the limit at .

However, I'm not sure this other superfunction is all that exciting. The fixed point has and so is a superattracting fixed point -- in fact the rate of convergence there is quadratic. This means that the superfunction at that point will approach it double-exponentially toward .

I haven't really studied the case of a superattracting fixed point, but if I were to wager a guess, I'd suggest this superfunction is ... which is nothing more than an imaginary translation of the first superfunction by a shift value of . There doesn't seem to be much room for what else it could be, under the constraint of being a double-exponential function with double-exponental approach to the fixed point.

(03/23/2014, 12:15 AM)tommy1729 Wrote: What about those methods where we use 2 fixpoints such as the analytic sickel between two fixpoints based on fatou ?

There is no sickel between two fixed points on the real line for a real-valued-on-the-real-line function, or more precisely it is "degenerate". But if you mean the "merged superfunction" method... If I am right, then the two superfunctions are nothing more than translations of each other, and I'd believe -- though I'm not sure -- that the merge method would not give anything new -- essentially, they are already "merged"!

(03/23/2014, 12:15 AM)tommy1729 Wrote: This seems to be as puzzling as tetration itself , hence like I said this is imho " deception ". It is more complicated then it looks.

Seems having the entire property does not solve all issues !

Keep in mind that an answer like " oh thats just because of the log branches " is not a " real " answer.

I was aware of this for a long time but I was waiting for a response to my first post. Since it did not come I felt the need to explain more.
Maybe you agree on the opinion that this is a serious important topic now.

regards

tommy1729

Hopefully, this will be an illuminating response.
Reply
#4
Hi mike3.

Thanks for your answer.

Its a bit helpful but I feel there are still issues.

The main one being F(x)=2 having multiple solutions.

Maybe its my lack of understanding but lets compare to sexp.

The sexp has all its fixpoints at +/- oo i.

If sexp had one of its fixpoints at say a + bi for 0 <a,b< oo then that would create a problem since that would require we have a straith line.
And hence sexp would then not be analytic near c + bi for any real c.

So what does that mean ?
Is not 2 a fixpoints of the half-iterate of f ?
Is there no line in this case ?

But whenever we get F(x)=2 , because of f(2)=2 we know that we get a local periodic behaviour. (period =< 1)

Guess similar question arise for most superfunctions of polynomials of degree 2 since they are all of double exponential nature.
(related : chebyshev polynomial , sinh(2^x) , mandelbrot , ... )

My confusion is probably because of the imho weird positions of solutions to F(x) = 2. ( because of ln branches ). In combination with the idea above ofcourse.

In other cases of superfunctions I can imagine the fixpoints (of the original function , not the superfunction) to be on other branches. Here that is problematic. Hence my special intrest.

regards

tommy1729
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Natural cyclic superfunction tommy1729 3 2,793 12/08/2015, 12:09 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  [2014] Uniqueness of periodic superfunction tommy1729 0 1,815 11/09/2014, 10:20 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  twice a superfunction tommy1729 5 5,075 03/26/2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: MphLee
  Uniqueness of Ansus' extended sum superfunction bo198214 4 6,363 10/25/2013, 11:27 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  2*sinh(3^h*asinh(x/2)) is the superfunction of (...) ? Gottfried 5 5,184 09/11/2013, 08:32 PM
Last Post: Gottfried
  superfunction contain fix ? tommy1729 2 3,314 10/07/2010, 12:14 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  closed form for regular superfunction expressed as a periodic function sheldonison 31 30,043 09/09/2010, 10:18 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  fourier superfunction ? tommy1729 2 3,882 06/23/2010, 10:52 PM
Last Post: tommy1729



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)