Find Fixed Points of e^z Complex Equation

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around finding the fixed points of the complex equation e^z = z. Participants explore the nature of the solutions and the implications of complex analysis, particularly in relation to the Lambert W function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants consider the use of the Lambert W function and question the existence of fixed points. Some express uncertainty about the necessity of complex analysis for the problem, while others explore the implications of branch cuts and the multivalued nature of the Lambert W function.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have provided insights into the nature of the solutions, while others are questioning the assumptions made regarding the problem's context and the mathematical tools required.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted lack of consensus on whether the problem can be approached using basic mathematics without complex analysis. Additionally, the original poster emphasizes that the problem was posed in a non-homework context, leading to varied interpretations of the requirements.

nigelvr
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How would one go about finding the fixed points of e^z, where z is complex (i.e. all z s.t. e^z = z)?

Homework Equations


Nothing.

The Attempt at a Solution


I've considered all the relevant formulas (de Moivre's formula, power series, z = re^i*theta, ...).

For some reason, I'm just not getting the solution. I feel that this is going to be really obvious, and I'm not sure why I'm not getting it. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The equation e^z=z cannot be solved using elementary functions. So what exactly is it that you want?? Do you want to prove that there are fixed points?? Do you want an expression of them?? (Use something similar to Lambert's W function) Do you want to find a numerical approximation??
 
I would like to find an expression for the fixed points, if they exist. If they happen to not exist, then I would like a proof of that.

It isn't really a homework question, the prof just asked us to think about finding the fixed points of e^x. The thing is though, the course doesn't assume we know any complex analysis, so I figured it could be solved using basic math (not even calculus).

Thanks for your reply.

Nigel
 
nigelvr said:
I would like to find an expression for the fixed points, if they exist. If they happen to not exist, then I would like a proof of that.

It isn't really a homework question, the prof just asked us to think about finding the fixed points of e^x. The thing is though, the course doesn't assume we know any complex analysis, so I figured it could be solved using basic math (not even calculus).

Thanks for your reply.

Nigel

Maple 11 gets the solution as x = -LambertW(-1) =~= 0.3181315052-I*1.337235052, where I = sqrt(-1). Here, LambertW(z) is the solution of f(z)*exp(f(z))=z which is analytic at z = 0.

RGV
 
Ray Vickson said:
Maple 11 gets the solution as x = -LambertW(-1) =~= 0.3181315052-I*1.337235052, where I = sqrt(-1). Here, LambertW(z) is the solution of f(z)*exp(f(z))=z which is analytic at z = 0.

RGV

It should be noted that -W(-1) is only one solution. Indeed, the Lambert W function is multivalued, so there are infinitely many values for -W(-1). Also note that the Lambert W function is not analytical at -1, since it has a branch cut there.
 
micromass said:
It should be noted that -W(-1) is only one solution. Indeed, the Lambert W function is multivalued, so there are infinitely many values for -W(-1). Also note that the Lambert W function is not analytical at -1, since it has a branch cut there.

The branch point is at z_c = -exp(-1), so z = -1 is, indeed, on (one side of) the branch cut.

RGV
 
nigelvr said:
I would like to find an expression for the fixed points, if they exist. If they happen to not exist, then I would like a proof of that.

It isn't really a homework question, the prof just asked us to think about finding the fixed points of e^x. The thing is though, the course doesn't assume we know any complex analysis, so I figured it could be solved using basic math (not even calculus).

Thanks for your reply.

Nigel

Then you should assume x is real. Think about the graph of the real functions.
 
I really think we're missing the point with this branch-cut thing: It's arbitrary. That means I can move it and the function becomes perfectally analytic at z=-1. In fact, I would argue the function is everywhere analytic except at the branch-point z=-1/e.

Also, if I may be allowed to be complete, the OP specifically stated complex z so no real for me and to find an explicit expression for z, we get it into suitable Lambert-w form:

z=e^z

1=ze^{-z}

-1=-ze^{-z}

at that point, take the W function of both sides:

-z=W(-1)

then:

z=-W(-1)

and keep in mind the function e^z-z is a non-polynomial entire function which by Picard, reaches all values with at most one exception, infinitely often so that we would expect the expression e^z=z to have an infinite number of solutions.
 
Last edited:
I did a little exploration of this interesting problem... the first few solutions found are

0.318131505 ± i * 1.337235701
2.06227773 ± i * 7.588631178
2.653191974 ± i * 13.94920833
3.020239708 ± i * 20.27245764
3.287768612 ± i * 26.5804715
3.498515212 ± i * 32.88072148
3.672450069 ± i * 39.17644002
3.820554308 ± i * 45.4692654

... the imaginary portion increasing by approx 2\pi each time and |z| = eRe(z).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K