• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
 Cheta with base-change: preliminary results jaydfox Long Time Fellow Posts: 440 Threads: 31 Joined: Aug 2007 08/12/2009, 02:15 AM (08/12/2009, 01:31 AM)sheldonison Wrote: Oh, I get it, you're using the well defined function base change function at the real axis only, for sexp_e(z). And then your using those real values to generate the taylor series???? And graphing that taylor series in the complex plane?Yes, this version of sexp is for base e (hence the lack of a subscript), and is found using the change of base formula with the cheta function. I'm working in the double-logarithmic scale, so the cheta function turns out to be the continuous iteration of e^x-1 (which is why I don't have a specific reference to eta). So I calculate sexp(m*2^p), for m an integer between -64 and 64, for example, and p equal to -108. Because I'm only using reals, convergence is assured. I'm using sexp(0)=0, because Andrew's slog is centered at 0, so I can have slog(sexp(0)) and expect an exact answer. Anyway, I can then use those 129 points to calculate the various derivatives (actually, I use a matrix inversion that directly gives me the coefficients of the approximated Taylor series). Once I have a Taylor series, I can then move away from the real line. See the following wikipedia article for the general idea of how the grid of points can be used to get derivatives: http://en.wikipedia.orirg/wiki/Five-point_stencil Instead of a 5-point stencil, I use a 129-point stencil. I don't yet have a formula for the coefficients for the stencil, so I have to use a matrix inversion to derive them "the hard way". For an n-point stencil, the matrix inversion is the primary limiting factor for this method, because it uses O(n^3) memory, whereas a vector method would use O(n^2). (The matrix has n^2 terms, each using a multiple of n bits, so the space is order n^3). ~ Jay Daniel Fox « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Messages In This Thread Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/11/2009, 05:16 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by bo198214 - 08/11/2009, 06:45 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/11/2009, 06:52 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/11/2009, 08:03 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/11/2009, 09:12 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by sheldonison - 08/12/2009, 01:31 AM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/12/2009, 02:15 AM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by Gottfried - 08/12/2009, 12:37 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/12/2009, 02:29 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by Gottfried - 08/12/2009, 03:47 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/12/2009, 04:49 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by bo198214 - 08/11/2009, 08:11 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/11/2009, 08:45 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by bo198214 - 08/11/2009, 08:54 PM RE: Cheta with base-change: preliminary results - by jaydfox - 08/12/2009, 12:24 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)