Discussing the Near Step Function for γ=0.4823241136337762

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AntonVrba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Step function
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties and behavior of a near step function defined by a specific mathematical expression involving a parameter γ. Participants explore the function's characteristics, simplifications, and implications for different values of γ, particularly focusing on its behavior as x varies. The conversation includes technical reasoning and mathematical exploration.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a near step function and provides specific evaluations for various values of x, noting its behavior for |x|>1 and |x|<0.3.
  • Another participant suggests that modifying the function by changing x^2 to x^4 (or higher powers) could make it closer to a step function.
  • A participant proposes a simplification of the step function using a different variable α, asserting that it retains the same form but with fewer symbols.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of simplification, arguing that the number of arbitrary constants remains unchanged and expresses a preference for the original exponential form.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the parameters γ and α are not arbitrary but must be chosen within specific limits to avoid complex values, indicating that proper selection can affect the function's behavior significantly.
  • One participant clarifies that the term "arbitrary" should be understood within a certain domain, specifying a condition that γ must exceed 1/e.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the simplification of the function and the implications of the parameters involved. There is no consensus on whether the proposed simplification is indeed simpler or more effective, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal form of the function.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the choice of parameters and their effects on the function's behavior, particularly concerning the avoidance of complex values. The discussion highlights the dependence on specific conditions for the parameters involved.

AntonVrba
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
I would like to invite comment to the near step function below.

[tex] \Mvariable{step(x)}=\frac{{e^{-\frac{\gamma }{{x^2}}}}}{{\sqrt{1-\frac{{e^{-\frac{\gamma }{{x^2}}}}}{{x^2}}}}}[/tex]

the above function evaluates to nearly 1 for |x|>1 and nearly zero for |x|<0.3

for gamma = 0.4823241136337762 I have attached the plots of step and 1-step

here are some spot values for
x and step(x)
0.05 1.15E-83
0.1 1.84E-21
0.2 6.55E-6
0.3 5.11E-3
0.4 6.11E-2
0.5 2.32E-1
0.6 0.518
0.8 0.932
1.0 1.0068
2.0 1.006
5.0 1.00092
10 1.00022
50 1.0000090
 

Attachments

  • step.gif
    step.gif
    2.6 KB · Views: 537
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Indeed. If you change all the [itex]x^2[/itex]s to [itex]x^4[/itex]s (or [itex]x^{1000}[/itex]s), then it'll get even closer to a step function.
 
I just noticed that the step function can be simplified even more
[tex] \Mvariable{step}(x)=<br /> \frac{{e^{-\frac{\gamma }{{x^2}}}}}{{\sqrt{1-\frac{{e^{-\frac{\gamma }{{x^2}}}}}{{x^2}}}}}<br /> <br /> =\frac{{{\alpha}^{\frac{1}{{x^2}}}}}{{\sqrt{1-\frac{{{\alpha}^{\frac{1}{{x^2}}}}}{{x^2}}}}}\\[/tex]

for above gamma= 0.4823241136337762 , alpha =0.61734693877551, hence

[tex] \Mvariable{step}(x)=<br /> \frac{{{0.61734693877551}^{\frac{1}{{x^2}}}}}{{\sqrt{1-\frac{{{0.61734693877551}^{\frac{1}{{x^2}}}}}{{x^2}}}}}\\[/tex]
 
Well, it's not really "simpler." You have the same number of arbitrary constants, though I guess you have a couple fewer symbols in general (you got rid of two minus signs - but you could do that just by specifying that [itex]\gamma[/itex] must be negative). I'd usually just leave it in the exponential form, but that's a subjective choice based on the fact that I like the letter e :wink:
 
Data said:
Well, it's not really "simpler." You have the same number of arbitrary constants, QUOTE]


:eek: arbitrary :eek:
just play with the function and you will see that gamma or alpha has a rather very limited range for the function not to become complex for any real number:biggrin:

By proper choice of the Alpha you can make the function overshoot (become slightly larger than one) as in the example given, or the function always remaining slightly less than one i.e approach one at infinity, and that in a only very limitted range of values.
 
Last edited:
arbitrary within a certain domain is what I should have said, of course. In this case, you need [itex]\gamma > 1/e[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K