Can a Function Be Self-Containing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trepidation
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept of self-containing functions, specifically whether a function can reference itself within its definition. The user presents an equation, f(x) = a(f(x)) + x, and successfully rearranges it to derive f(x) = x/(1-a), confirming its validity. The conversation then shifts to the challenge of isolating a function, P(w), from an equation involving another function, D(P(w)), which complicates the process. It is concluded that without knowing the form of D, isolating P(w) is generally not possible, although approximate solutions may be found using numerical methods. The thread highlights the complexities of recursive functions and the limitations of solving equations with unknown transformations.
Trepidation
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
First off, I'd like to say that I'm new here and not very advanced. I'm really here in the hopes of learning something, so that my mathematical tools might match up with the mathematical level of my ideas ><.

So... First off: Is it possible for a function to contain itself? For instance, here's something I've been messing around with today:

f(x) = a ( f(x) ) +x

Now... If I change the notation from f(x) to y for clarity, I get this equation, which I can rearrange in the following way:

y = ay + x

y - ay = x

y(1-a) = x

y = \frac{x}{1-a}

And, returning the notation to its original form:

f(x) = \frac{x}{1-a}


In which case, my result (without all of the work I posted above) would be that

f(x) = a( f(x) ) + x

is identical to

f(x) = \frac{x}{1-a}


Is this correct, or incorrect; is there some property of functions that makes what I've done wrong? If it is correct, is there a name for this sort of "self-containing" function?

Thanks in advance for your replies... ^^
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Yes, that is valid. I would call it recursive, but I am a programmer, not a mathematician. Replacing a function with a variable in that case, though, is fine.
 
Alright, that's good then. Thank you. ^^

So... This is as different from what I just asked about as multiplication is from addition. But I guess it's related somehow ><.

Is it possible to solve this equation excusively for the function P(w)? What I mean is, isolate P(w) completely to one side, defining the function, without having it appear anywhere within itself. No D(P(w)) or anything like that.

And, if so, how, if you know? Or do you not know at all ><? My problem:

P(w) = \frac{N(w)}{D(P(w))}
 
I do not know of a way to take a function outside of another unknown function. If you know what the function “D” is, though, just replace it with the formula inside that function, and simplify.

The problem is that, if you do not know what the function D looks like, you do not know how it is transforming P(w), and therefore, you do not know how to reverse that to get it out of it… though I am not very advanced in mathematics, do not trust me that it is impossible with an unknown function! :)
 
In general, the answer is no. For example, let N(w)=1 , let D(u)=sin(u), and call P(w)=y,then your problem is: y*Sin(y)=1, in this case P(w) will just equal a constant which is about as simple as a function can get, but it can't be found in closed form, which I would call unsolvable.
(p.s. y can be found approximately using root finding methods, like Newtons method)
 
I know what function D and function N are. P is the unknown. I can't use the inverse of D, because if I do, it looks like this:

P(w) = \frac{N(w)}{D(P(w))}

P(w) * D(P(w)) = N(w)

D^{-1}(P(w)) * P(w) = D^{-1}(N(w))

As you can see, that doesn't help at all. Which is why I ask if it can be done at all...? It might, I don't know. And if it can, I really need to know how ><.

Thanks again for your help so far!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top