• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
  tommy's theorem sexp ' (z) =/= 0 ? tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 1,484 Threads: 354 Joined: Feb 2009 06/17/2014, 12:18 PM Let sexp(z) be a solution that is analytic in the entire complex plane apart from z=-2,-3,-4,... if w is a (finite) nonreal complex number such that sexp ' (w) = 0 then it follows that for real k>0 : sexp ' (w+k) = 0. Proof : chain rule exp^[k] is analytic : sexp(w+k) = exp^[k](sexp(w)) sexp ' (w+k) = exp^[k] ' (sexp(w)) * sexp ' (w) = 0 Hence we get a contradiction : sexp is not nonpolynomial analytic near w (or w + k). Conclusion there is no w such that sexp'(w) = 0. Consequences : since 0 < sexp ' (z) < oo slog ' (z) is also 0 < slog ' (z) < oo since exp^[k](v) = sexp(slog(v)+k) D exp^[k](v) = sexp ' (slog(v)+k) * slog ' (v) = nonzero * nonzero = nonzero.. => 0 < exp^[k] ' (z) < oo Tommy's theorem Strongly related to the TPID 4 thread and some recent conjectures of sheldon. the analogue difference is not understood yet. (posted that already) regards tommy1729 sheldonison Long Time Fellow    Posts: 681 Threads: 24 Joined: Oct 2008 06/17/2014, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 06/18/2014, 02:34 PM by sheldonison.) (06/17/2014, 12:18 PM)tommy1729 Wrote: Let sexp(z) be a solution that is analytic in the entire complex plane apart from z=-2,-3,-4,... if w is a (finite) nonreal complex number such that sexp ' (w) = 0 then it follows that for real k>0 : sexp ' (w+k) = 0. Proof : chain rule exp^[k] is analytic : sexp(w+k) = exp^[k](sexp(w)) sexp ' (w+k) = exp^[k] ' (sexp(w)) * sexp ' (w) = 0 .... Hence we get a contradiction : sexp is not nonpolynomial analytic near w (or w + k). Conclusion there is no w such that sexp'(w) = 0. http://math.eretrandre.org/tetrationforu...452&page=2 see post#19 and post#20, for the Taylor series of an sexp(z) function with first and second derivatives, sexp'(n)=0 and sexp''(n)=0, for all integers n>-2. This is sexp(z) from the secondary fixed point, analytic in the upper and lower halves of the complex plane. Where the derivative of sexp(x)=0, the slog(z) inverse has a cuberoot(0) branch singularity. The flaw in your proof is that k is an integer, but you state k as a real number. "sexp ' (w+k) = exp^[k] ' (sexp(w)) * sexp ' (w) = 0". For k as a fraction, the chain rule does not apply. A simple counter example to your proof is f(z), which has f'(n)=0 and f''(n)=0 for all integers>-2. As a side note, has a cube root branch singularity for n>=0, at . This is relevant since the exp^k(z) function used in the flawed proof is - Sheldon « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

 Possibly Related Threads... Thread Author Replies Views Last Post Some "Theorem" on the generalized superfunction Leo.W 44 7,702 09/24/2021, 04:37 PM Last Post: Leo.W tommy's singularity theorem and connection to kneser and gaussian method tommy1729 2 292 09/20/2021, 04:29 AM Last Post: JmsNxn " tommy quaternion " tommy1729 14 4,644 09/16/2021, 11:34 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy's Gaussian method. tommy1729 20 2,910 08/19/2021, 09:40 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy's simple solution ln^[n](2sinh^[n+x](z)) tommy1729 1 4,916 01/17/2017, 07:21 AM Last Post: sheldonison Sexp redefined ? Exp^[a]( - 00 ). + question ( TPID 19 ??) tommy1729 0 3,152 09/06/2016, 04:23 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy's matrix method for superlogarithm. tommy1729 0 3,257 05/07/2016, 12:28 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Dangerous limits ... Tommy's limit paradox tommy1729 0 3,396 11/27/2015, 12:36 AM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy's Gamma trick ? tommy1729 7 12,027 11/07/2015, 01:02 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Tommy triangles tommy1729 1 3,970 11/04/2015, 01:17 PM Last Post: tommy1729

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)