1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Composition of a function with itself

  1. May 25, 2015 #1
    Is possible to study the composition of a function f with itself when the number of compositions goes to infinity? I am interessed in the functions that can be written as a complex exponential of the function itself. Where i can study this kind of things?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 25, 2015 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This is studied in dynamical systems and chaos theory.

    Like functions such that ##f(x) = e^{if(x)}## for each ##x##?
     
  4. May 26, 2015 #3

    Ssnow

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The function ##f(x)## is a real function, is holomorphic or ... other assumptions?
     
  5. May 26, 2015 #4
    Thank you for the answer.
    I am interesed in a function that can be written in this way f(x)=c*exp{i*k*x*f(x)} where c and k are costants and f is a function fom R to R and x is the variabile.
    Does exist a similar function? If the answer is positive, does it have special propriety?
     
  6. May 30, 2015 #5

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If the function is differentiable with continuous derivative, then it must be constant, as you can see by differentiating both sides.
     
  7. Jun 2, 2015 #6
    Why it is a costant? If i take the derivative of that expression i get a differential equation for f(x), easy to resolve only respect to x: so it doesn' t seems to me that the solution is a costant
     
  8. Jun 2, 2015 #7

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    From your earlier post:

    If [itex]f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}[/itex] and [itex]k[/itex] is real, then taking the modulus of both sides yields [itex]|f(x)| = |c|[/itex]. If [itex]f[/itex] is to be continuous then either [itex]f(x) = |c|[/itex] or [itex]f(x) = -|c|[/itex], ie. [itex]f[/itex] is constant.

    If instead [itex]f: \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}[/itex] then you might be able to find a non-constant [itex]f[/itex] which satisfies that equation.
     
  9. Jun 2, 2015 #8
     
  10. Jun 2, 2015 #9

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If f(x) is differentiable, even as a complex function, yields
    ##f'(x) = ikf'(x)e^{ikf(x)} \Rightarrow f'(x)(1-ike^{ikf(x)}) = 0##
    So we either have ##f'(x) = 0##, or ##1 = ike^{ikf(x)} \Rightarrow log(ik)+ ikf(x) = 0##
    If it has a continuous derivative, then this implies that f is constant.

    If you're dealing with analytical functions for example, then your function is infinitely differentiable hence has a continuous derivative, leaving only constant functions.
     
  11. Jun 2, 2015 #10
    That is not my function: mine is f(x)=exp{ik x f(x)} you have forgotten the x
     
  12. Jun 3, 2015 #11

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Your equation can be written ## x=\frac{1}{ikf(x)}\ln\frac{f(x)}{c}## so you are trying to find an inverse to the function ##g(y)=\frac{1}{iky}\ln\frac{y}{c}##, which will not exist globally but is possible for well chosen domains.

    I wonder if you might be able to relate f to Lambert's W function, the equation is somewhat similar?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2015
  13. Jun 5, 2015 #12

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Oops, I was looking at the post above yours. Wabbit is right, however. The Lambert's W function is defined as the inverse of ##y = xe^x##, so that ##W(x)e^{W(x)} = x##. Since ##y = xe^x## is neither injective nor surjective, W is really "doubled valued", or we have to choose a branch of W. Now, the formula

    ##f(x) = ce^{ikf(x)}## really asks for solutions to ##y = ce^{iky}##. Rearranging, we get ##-ikye^{-iky} = -ikc##. Substituting ##z = -iky##, we get ##ze^{z} = -ikc##. Thus ##z = W(-ikc)##. I.e. ##f(x) = y = \frac{iz}{k} = \frac{iW(-ikc)}{k}##. While the Lambert W function is double valued, any continuous solution for f(x) must be constant. The constant value of f(x) may be chosen to be any value of ##\frac{iW(-ikc)}{k}## (if it exists). I am unsure if such a complex value always exists.
     
  14. Jun 5, 2015 #13

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    OP's equation however is ## f(x)=c e^{ikxf(x)} ##, not ## f(x)=c e^{ikf(x)} ##, so the possible link with Lambert's W function isn't as direct as that, and the solution is not constant if complex valued functions are allowed.
     
  15. Jun 5, 2015 #14

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I can't believe I made that mistake twice.
     
  16. Jun 5, 2015 #15

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Returning to the correct type of function: ##f(x) = ce^{ikxf(x)}##. Like above, we are asking for a solution to ##y = ce^{ikxy}##. Rearranging, we get
    ##ye^{-ikxy} = c##. So ##-ikxye^{-ikxy} = -ikcx##. Substituting ##z = -ikxy## we get ##ze^z = -ikcx##. Thus ##z = W(-ikcx)##. Plugging back yields ##-ikxy = W(-ikcx)##, so ##y = \frac{W(-ikcx)}{-ikx}##.

    Hence ##f(x) = \frac{W(-ikcx)}{-ikx}##. Thus any branching of ##W## will yield this unique solution for a continuous ##f##. Here of course we assume that both x and k are non-zero. It is likely possible to extend the domain of this function to include x = 0, by putting f(0) = 0, possibly depending on the branch chosen for W. In any case, it will depend on the behavior of f(x) as x approaches 0.
     
  17. Jun 5, 2015 #16

    wabbit

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Indeed ! I missed that, the link with W is much closer than I was suspecting.

    ## f(0)=c ## for any solution however, from the equation itself.

    And to wrap it up, if ## k ## is real then the only real-valued continuous solution is the constant ## f(x)=c ## since ##\forall x, |f(x)|=|c| ## and ## f(0)=c ##
     
  18. Jun 5, 2015 #17

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Right, so depending on the behavior of W around x = 0, we may possibly continuously extend the domain to x = 0 by putting f(0) = c.
     
  19. Jun 10, 2015 #18

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Just to add to this, We have from the equation ##W(z)e^{W(z)} = z## that ##W'(z)e^{W(z)}+W'(z)W(z)e^{W(z)} = 1##, so that ##W'(z) = \frac{1}{z+e^{W(z)}}##. Since ##W(0) = 0##, we may apply l'hopital to the expression

    ##\lim_{x \to 0} \frac{W(-ikcx)}{-ikx} = \lim_{z \to 0} \frac{W(cz)}{z} = \lim_{z \to 0} \frac{cW'(cz)}{1} = \lim_{z \to 0} \frac{c}{z+e^{W(z)}} = c.##

    So we may extend the definition of f(x) to x = 0 by putting f(0) = c.
     
  20. Jun 13, 2015 #19
    To sum up: my function is only a costant everywhere?
     
  21. Jun 13, 2015 #20

    disregardthat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Not constant, it will have the form ##f(x) = \frac{W(-ikcx)}{-ikx}## for any choice of branching of the lambert W-function. You may also extend it to x = 0 by putting f(0) = c. It is only constant if c = 0, or k = 0.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Composition of a function with itself
  1. Composite functions (Replies: 3)

  2. Composite function (Replies: 18)

Loading...