Half-iterate exp(z)-1: hypothese on growth of coefficients
#41
(08/19/2022, 05:54 AM)Leo.W Wrote:
(08/19/2022, 05:35 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: Leo, If a function is holomorphic in a neighborhood of \(0\), then it is expandable in a taylor series at \(0\).

If a functions IS NOT holomorphic in a neighborhood of \(0\), then it IS NOT expandable in a taylor series at \(0\).

What Baker is saying, is that there is a divergent series at \(0\)--THEREFORE, it is not holomorphic in a neighborhood of \(0\).

(*) Unless it is an LFT-- by which it wouldn't be a Euclidean mapping Shy

But James, holomorphic refers to differentiable, not the convergent Taylor series, it can have divergent series, as mostly hypergeometric functions do?
Here's another example, consider \(f(z)=\sum_{n\ge0}{_2\mathrm{F}_0(n,a;;c)z^n}\), this function diverges because all its coefficients refers to a divergent series, \(_2\mathrm{F}_0(n,a;;c)=\sum_{k\ge0}{\frac{(a)_k(n)_k}{k!}c^n}\), but still can be continued by \(f(z)=-cze^{\frac{z-1}{c}}\big(\frac{z-1}{c}\big)^{a-1}\Gamma(1-a,\frac{z-1}{c})\), choosing proper a, the function is holomorphic, has a divergent series in some sense but indeed a convergent series(Borel sum).

Quote:Ps. what if you don't consider the petals of log⁡(1+z)? because e^z−1 maps Re(z)<−M for very large M into the neighborhood of 0, that is why I defined the branch cuts, so that taking both petals of log⁡(1+z) and a "petal" strip from Re(z)<0∧|Im(z)|<1 produces a holomorphic halfiterate at 0
I wonder if you'd try this?

LEO!

Have you not heard of Cauchy's theorem.

If a function is complex differentiable, it is expandable in a taylor series.

If a taylor series converges, it is complex differentiable!!!!

HOLOMORPHY = TAYLOR SERIES EXPANDABLE
Reply
#42
(08/19/2022, 06:17 AM)JmsNxn Wrote:
(08/19/2022, 05:54 AM)Leo.W Wrote:
(08/19/2022, 05:35 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: Leo, If a function is holomorphic in a neighborhood of \(0\), then it is expandable in a taylor series at \(0\).

If a functions IS NOT holomorphic in a neighborhood of \(0\), then it IS NOT expandable in a taylor series at \(0\).

What Baker is saying, is that there is a divergent series at \(0\)--THEREFORE, it is not holomorphic in a neighborhood of \(0\).

(*) Unless it is an LFT-- by which it wouldn't be a Euclidean mapping Shy

But James, holomorphic refers to differentiable, not the convergent Taylor series, it can have divergent series, as mostly hypergeometric functions do?
Here's another example, consider \(f(z)=\sum_{n\ge0}{_2\mathrm{F}_0(n,a;;c)z^n}\), this function diverges because all its coefficients refers to a divergent series, \(_2\mathrm{F}_0(n,a;;c)=\sum_{k\ge0}{\frac{(a)_k(n)_k}{k!}c^n}\), but still can be continued by \(f(z)=-cze^{\frac{z-1}{c}}\big(\frac{z-1}{c}\big)^{a-1}\Gamma(1-a,\frac{z-1}{c})\), choosing proper a, the function is holomorphic, has a divergent series in some sense but indeed a convergent series(Borel sum).

Quote:Ps. what if you don't consider the petals of log⁡(1+z)? because e^z−1 maps Re(z)<−M for very large M into the neighborhood of 0, that is why I defined the branch cuts, so that taking both petals of log⁡(1+z) and a "petal" strip from Re(z)<0∧|Im(z)|<1 produces a holomorphic halfiterate at 0
I wonder if you'd try this?

LEO!

Have you not heard of Cauchy's theorem.

If a function is complex differentiable, it is expandable in a taylor series.

If a taylor series converges, it is complex differentiable!!!!

HOLOMORPHY = TAYLOR SERIES EXPANDABLE
Sure I had! I get your point, But does expandable = have a positive radius of convergence? What I've been taught is that there can be 0 radius of convergence(as the finite sum always differentiable?)... and by inversion of Borel sum, any series with \(a_n>O(n!^{-k})\) can't converge... So this is my pov, by borel sum it must converge, and by multivaluedness and branch cut, it's probable to find a branch holomorphic at z=0...

I apologize, I'm stiff and my words stubborn. Anyway I'll say you're right.

Please try the construction with a strip branch cut, by the petals of \(e^z-1\) is different from that by the petals of \(\log(z+1)\), it won't disappoint you.
Regards, Leo Smile
Reply
#43
Okay, Leo, I love our dialogue. Please don't feel any persecution. I think your solution, and what you've described is very valuable. But it is an asymptotic expansion; upon which Taylor data will fail.

If you have an asymptotic expansion at \(z = 0\), and you know the Taylor expansion at \(z=0\) diverges--Then the function \(f(z)\) can be holomorphic around values near \(z=0\). But it cannot be holomorphic on \(|z| < \delta\). So essentially, yes you can still have holomorphy near 0, but you can't actually have holomorphy at \(0\). And I think this is your largest confusion.

Again, I hope I'm not seeming like a dick, trying to discourage your constructions. I think they are very fucking valuable. But in this scenario, I think you need to identify that you haven't created a holomorphic function \(g(g(z)) = e^z-1\) for \(|z| < \delta\). You've created an asymptotic expansion (same as Gottfrieds), but you've massaged it to make it look nearly holomorphic (which is still a great accomplishment).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record; \(g\) can't be holomorphic on an \(\epsilon\)-ball centered at \(z = 0\). BUT! It can be holomorphic everywhere around this point. Which reduces into two branches \(g^{\pm}\) which are holomorphic on \(\mathbb{C}/(-\infty,0]\) or \(\mathbb{C}/[0,\infty)\). So they are holomorphic near zero--but never at zero.

I don't want to seem like a dick; I'm just saying you need to reevaluate the constructions you are making in this instance. I have absolute confidence in much of your constructions. But it's okay to take a loss every once in a while. I mean, confidence and strength of conviction as a mathematician is important. But we need to understand and accept when we made a mistake.

Quite frankly, I would like to better understand how you are making your asymptotic solution. Which looks fucking beautiful, and you should be proud of it. But remember, this IS NOT HOLOMORPHIC FOR \(z = 0\).

That's my only disagreement. Big Grin
Reply
#44
(08/19/2022, 07:05 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: Okay, Leo, I love our dialogue. Please don't feel any persecution. I think your solution, and what you've described is very valuable. But it is an asymptotic expansion; upon which Taylor data will fail.

If you have an asymptotic expansion at \(z = 0\), and you know the Taylor expansion at \(z=0\) diverges--Then the function \(f(z)\) can be holomorphic around values near \(z=0\). But it cannot be holomorphic on \(|z| < \delta\). So essentially, yes you can still have holomorphy near 0, but you can't actually have holomorphy at \(0\). And I think this is your largest confusion.

Again, I hope I'm not seeming like a dick, trying to discourage your constructions. I think they are very fucking valuable. But in this scenario, I think you need to identify that you haven't created a holomorphic function \(g(g(z)) = e^z-1\) for \(|z| < \delta\). You've created an asymptotic expansion (same as Gottfrieds), but you've massaged it to make it look nearly holomorphic (which is still a great accomplishment).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record; \(g\) can't be holomorphic on an \(\epsilon\)-ball centered at \(z = 0\). BUT! It can be holomorphic everywhere around this point. Which reduces into two branches \(g^{\pm}\) which are holomorphic on \(\mathbb{C}/(-\infty,0]\) or \(\mathbb{C}/[0,\infty)\). So they are holomorphic near zero--but never at zero.

I don't want to seem like a dick; I'm just saying you need to reevaluate the constructions you are making in this instance. I have absolute confidence in much of your constructions. But it's okay to take a loss every once in a while. I mean, confidence and strength of conviction as a mathematician is important. But we need to understand and accept when we made a mistake.

Quite frankly, I would like to better understand how you are making your asymptotic solution. Which looks fucking beautiful, and you should be proud of it. But remember, this IS NOT HOLOMORPHIC FOR \(z = 0\).

That's my only disagreement. Big Grin

Well, thank you James. You're very nice. I think the mistake happens at the branch cut now, The 2 pieces of halfiterate coincide at 0 by their asymps, um, I kinda needa refresh my kinda old-version textbook.
Regards, Leo Smile
Reply
#45
(08/19/2022, 04:36 AM)Leo.W Wrote: Also, you can't define julia's function only by \(j(f)=jf'\), to distinct a julia function, you'd need to define an initial value, and claim it's not multiplied by any of the form \(\theta(\alpha(z))\) where theta is 1-periodic and alpha is the abel funct. Wink

The Julia function is considered as a formal powerseries here. The coefficients recursively obtained from the above equation are unique if we  set \(j_k=0\)  for \(k< m\) and \(j_m=f_m\) where  \(f(z) = z + f_m z^m + f_{m+1} z^{m+1}+ ...,\quad f_m\neq 0\). There is no theta-ambiguity here - like with the regular iteration at a fixed point. For parabolic iteration the condition is that the iterates are asymptotically analytic at the fixed point.

(08/19/2022, 04:36 AM)Leo.W Wrote:
bo198214 Wrote:But the normal thing is that these Abel-Functions/Fatou-Coordinates are different from each other (and hence the iterates). Only in exceptional cases (e.g. LFTs) they agree.
Please lemme know what is this and why~  Wink
Its written in Milnor "Dynamics in one complex variable" Wink
And btw I can not read your quotes when you use [size=1]!
Reply
#46
(08/19/2022, 06:26 PM)bo198214:The Julia function is considered as a formal powerseries here. The coefficients recursively obtained from the above equation are unique if we  set \(j_k="0\)  for \(k< m\) and" \(j_m="f_m\) where  \(f(z) = z + f_m z^m + f_{m+1} z^{m+1}+ ...,\quad f_m\neq 0\). There is no theta-ambiguity here - like with the regular iteration at a fixed point. For parabolic iteration the condition is that the iterates are asymptotically analytic at the fixed point. Wrote: Oh! I see! now I think I'm dumb Exclamation
(08/19/2022, 04:36 AM)Leo.W Wrote:
bo198214 Wrote:But the normal thing is that these Abel-Functions/Fatou-Coordinates are different from each other (and hence the iterates). Only in exceptional cases (e.g. LFTs) they agree.
Please lemme know what is this and why~  Wink
Its written in Milnor "Dynamics in one complex variable" Wink
And btw I can not read your quotes when you use [size=1]!
Thanks, I read this book last year and obviously I skipped this chapter or sth...
How? I just tapped the "quote" button in chrome? Can't it load in mobiles? lol I'll be careful next time
Regards, Leo Smile
Reply
#47
(08/28/2022, 01:41 PM)Leo.W Wrote: How? I just tapped the "quote" button in chrome? Can't it load in mobiles? lol I'll be careful next time

Yeah, I don't know, to me also happens something similar if I copy text from somewhere into my reply, then it automatically puts some tags (I Think \[color] and another one) around it - and I wonder why my formula isn't shown correctly! Only until I press the "'view sourcecode" then I noticed the mess.
So pressing "view sourcecode" is always a good thing! Wink
Reply
#48
(08/28/2022, 01:41 PM)Leo.W Wrote:
bo198214 Wrote:
(08/19/2022, 04:36 AM)Leo.W Wrote:
bo198214 Wrote:But the normal thing is that these Abel-Functions/Fatou-Coordinates are different from each other (and hence the iterates). Only in exceptional cases (e.g. LFTs) they agree.
Please lemme know what is this and why~  Wink
Its written in Milnor "Dynamics in one complex variable" Wink
Thanks, I read this book last year and obviously I skipped this chapter or sth...

In this version of the book it is Theorem 7.7, Lemma 7.8 and particularly the following remark.
Reply
#49
As for divergent summations I wanted to say something long ago but it was already said elsewhere :

" repeated borel summation "

@MISC {4246080,
    TITLE = {Has someone seen a discussion of the (divergent) summation of $\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty (-1)^k (k!)^2 $?},
    AUTHOR = {Caleb Briggs (https://math.stackexchange.com/users/709...leb-briggs)},
    HOWPUBLISHED = {Mathematics Stack Exchange},
    NOTE = {URL:https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4246080 (version: 2021-09-30)},
    EPRINT = {https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4246080},
    URL = {https://math.stackexchange.com/q/4246080}
}


https://math.stackexchange.com/questions...limits-k-0

***

the validity of the borel summations matches the number of solutions for fractional iterates when taking in the correct direction.

nice.

***

sorry if im repeating said things , i have to catch up on reading ...


regards

tommy1729
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  logit coefficients growth pattern bo198214 21 1,235 09/09/2022, 03:00 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
Question Repeated Differentiation Leading to Tetrationally Fast Growth Catullus 5 533 07/16/2022, 07:26 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Why the beta-method is non-zero in the upper half plane JmsNxn 0 911 09/01/2021, 01:57 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Half-iterates and periodic stuff , my mod method [2019] tommy1729 0 2,669 09/09/2019, 10:55 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Approximation to half-iterate by high indexed natural iterates (base on ShlThrb) Gottfried 1 3,811 09/09/2019, 10:50 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Between exp^[h] and elementary growth tommy1729 0 3,095 09/04/2017, 11:12 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Does tetration take the right half plane to itself? JmsNxn 7 14,809 05/16/2017, 08:46 PM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Half-iteration of x^(n^2) + 1 tommy1729 3 9,118 03/09/2017, 10:02 PM
Last Post: Xorter
  Uniqueness of half-iterate of exp(x) ? tommy1729 14 31,759 01/09/2017, 02:41 AM
Last Post: Gottfried
  Taylor polynomial. System of equations for the coefficients. marraco 17 32,806 08/23/2016, 11:25 AM
Last Post: Gottfried



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)