• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
  tommy's theorem sexp ' (z) =/= 0 ? tommy1729 Ultimate Fellow     Posts: 1,700 Threads: 374 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: 684 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 59 18,038 09/18/2022, 11:05 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy's group addition isomo conjecture tommy1729 1 79 09/16/2022, 12:25 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy's displacement equation tommy1729 1 73 09/16/2022, 12:24 PM Last Post: tommy1729 semi-group homomorphism and tommy's U-tetration tommy1729 5 250 08/12/2022, 08:14 PM Last Post: tommy1729 " tommy quaternion " tommy1729 30 8,866 07/04/2022, 10:58 PM Last Post: Catullus Tommy's Gaussian method. tommy1729 34 9,974 06/28/2022, 02:23 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy's new conjecture/theorem/idea (2022) ?? tommy1729 0 183 06/22/2022, 11:49 PM Last Post: tommy1729 Revitalizing an old idea : estimated fake sexp'(x) = F3(x) tommy1729 0 465 02/27/2022, 10:17 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy beta method tommy1729 0 669 12/09/2021, 11:48 PM Last Post: tommy1729 tommy's singularity theorem and connection to kneser and gaussian method tommy1729 2 1,370 09/20/2021, 04:29 AM Last Post: JmsNxn

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s) 