Find Fixed Points of e^z Complex Equation

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
8 replies · 4K views
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
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 [itex]z=-1/e[/itex].

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:

[tex]z=e^z[/tex]

[tex]1=ze^{-z}[/tex]

[tex]-1=-ze^{-z}[/tex]

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

[tex]-z=W(-1)[/tex]

then:

[tex]z=-W(-1)[/tex]

and keep in mind the function [itex]e^z-z[/itex] 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 [itex]e^z=z[/itex] 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 [itex]2\pi[/itex] each time and |z| = eRe(z).