Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
introducing TPID 16
#1
TPID 16

Let be a nonpolynomial real entire function.
has a conjugate primary fixpoint pair :
has no other primary fixpoints then the conjugate primary fixpoint pair.
For between and and such that we have that
is analytic in .
is analytic for all real and all real .
If is analytic for then :
for all real , all real and all integer .
Otherwise
for all real , all real and all integer .


Are there solutions for ?
I conjecture yes.


regards

tommy1729
Reply
#2
(06/07/2014, 11:03 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: TPID 16

Let be a nonpolynomial real entire function.
has a conjugate fixpoint pair :
has no other fixpoints then the conjugate fixpoint pair.
...
such that we have that
...
If is analytic for then :
for all real , all real and all integer

I'm not sure how big a deal this is but if has two solutions, than we expect an infinite number of fixed points for an entire function, the zeros of .

It sounds like the conjecture is that all of the derivatives are positive for values of x>0, under some conditions? Not sure I get the entire conjecture; as applied to tetration, it might be that L~=0.3+1.3i, so if sexp(z)>real(L)^2+1????? Jay observed that all of the odd derivatives of tetration are positive, and that all of the even derivatives start out negative, and eventually become positive, crossing the real axis exactly once. But this does not happen instantaneously, and I'm not sure how long it takes. For example, the 22nd derivative of tetration is negative at x=0, and goes positive at x=0.0078; the 42nd derivative is the first derivative that is negative at x=0.15; and doesn't go positive until x=0.15105. For the 100th derivative, the transition >0.31.

One other problem is that the "otherwise" statement here is identical to the then statement.
Quote:Otherwise
for all real , all real and all integer .
....
- Sheldon
Reply
#3
(06/08/2014, 04:05 PM)sheldonison Wrote: One other problem is that the "otherwise" statement here is identical to the then statement.

No. Larger or equal than 0 =/= larger than 0.
( for x)

You are mistaken.
Even if I shake ideas out of my sleeve I usually know what Im doing.

I was aware of Jay's observation.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#4
Oh sheldon sorry.
I meant primary fixpoints.

I only noticed today I did not write it.

regards

tommy1729
Reply
#5
Is it required that there exists a superfunction of f(z) such that the superfunction is bounded within any (finite) radius centered at 0 ?

regards

tommy1729
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Sexp redefined ? Exp^[a]( - 00 ). + question ( TPID 19 ??) tommy1729 0 1,368 09/06/2016, 04:23 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Flexible etas and eulers ? TPID 10 tommy1729 0 1,255 08/19/2016, 12:09 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  (almost) proof of TPID 13 fivexthethird 1 1,997 05/06/2016, 04:12 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Introducing new special function : Lambert_t(z,r) tommy1729 2 3,182 01/10/2016, 06:14 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  TPID 4 tommy1729 29 22,269 07/07/2014, 11:56 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  TPID 8 tommy1729 0 1,744 04/04/2011, 10:45 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Discussion of TPID 6 JJacquelin 3 5,686 10/24/2010, 07:44 AM
Last Post: bo198214
  Another proof of TPID 6 tommy1729 0 1,938 07/25/2010, 11:51 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  proof: Limit of self-super-roots is e^1/e. TPID 6 bo198214 3 6,656 07/10/2010, 09:13 AM
Last Post: bo198214



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)