How can the exact values of the W function be calculated for all numbers?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of exact values of the Lambert-W function for all numbers, particularly in the context of the intersection of the functions f(z)=e^z and g(z)=z in complex analysis. Participants explore the relationship between these functions and the implications of using the Lambert-W function to express solutions.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the equivalence of the intersection problem to the equation z=ln(z) and proposes that this leads to an infinite process involving the Lambert-W function.
  • Another participant suggests manipulating the equation z=e^z into a form suitable for the Lambert-W function, indicating that solutions can be expressed as z=W_n(some number)/some factor.
  • Concerns are raised about the specific branch of the Lambert-W function to use, particularly when evaluating W(-1) and its implications for complex solutions.
  • Participants discuss the existence of infinitely many branches of the Lambert-W function and the fact that only certain branches yield real outputs for real inputs.
  • There is mention of the convergence of the infinite power tower z^{z^{z...}} and its limitations regarding real numbers.
  • Questions arise about the exact values of W_n(z) for real and complex numbers, with references to external resources for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the exact values of the Lambert-W function for all numbers, with some suggesting that exact values may not be calculable. There is no consensus on the best approach or the implications of the branches of the function.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the Lambert-W function has complex solutions and that the existence of real solutions is limited to specific branches. The discussion also highlights the lack of known exact expressions for many cases, particularly for complex inputs.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying complex analysis, special functions, or mathematical modeling involving the Lambert-W function.

pierce15
Messages
313
Reaction score
2
Hi all,

I posed this problem to my calculus teacher a few days ago and we have not been able to come close to solving it thus far. The problem is to find the intersection of the solids (complex functions require use of the 4d space, so I assume that the function would be a solid) f(z)=e^z and g(z)=z (where z is a complex number).

What I managed to show was that this system is equivalent to the complex intersection between ln(z) and e^z. This is quite simple:

e^z=z
ln(e^z)=ln(z)
z=ln(z)

by basic substitution, a new system with equivalent solutions is born: e^z=ln(z).

Furthermore, raising both sides of this equation to a power of e results in z=e^(e^z). Thus, this new function is equivalent to ln(z), and one can continue this process infinitely by replacing every z with e^z.

Any ideas? Maybe there is a theorem regarding the intersections of inverse equations
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry if this gives away more than you were hoping for, but there is a solution in terms of a special function. Read on if you are interested. I haven't given away all the details, I just tell you about the special function but leave it for you to try and solve the equation in terms of the special function.

For complex numbers z, there is a solution in terms of a special function called the Lambert-W function, ##W_n(u)##. This special function is defined by solving ##u = w \exp(w)## for ##w = W_n(u)##. The index n indicates a "branch" of the Lambert-W function (similar to how when solving ##u = sin(w)## you have solutions ##w_n = \arcsin(u) + 2n\pi##).

See if you can manipulate your equation ##z = e^z## into the form ##(\mbox{some number} = (\mbox{something} \times z) \exp((\mbox{something} \times z))##, in which case your solution will be ##z = W_n(\mbox{some number})/\mbox{something}##.

In fact, the infinite tower

$$z^{z^{z^\ldots}}$$

can also be written in terms of the Lambert-W function (though for complex numbers z it is a definition). For real numbers, the infinite tower only converges to a non-infinite real number on a small range of z. The two approaches will agree for your case of z = e.
 
Mute said:
I'm sorry if this gives away more than you were hoping for, but there is a solution in terms of a special function. Read on if you are interested. I haven't given away all the details, I just tell you about the special function but leave it for you to try and solve the equation in terms of the special function.

For complex numbers z, there is a solution in terms of a special function called the Lambert-W function, ##W_n(u)##. This special function is defined by solving ##u = w \exp(w)## for ##w = W_n(u)##. The index n indicates a "branch" of the Lambert-W function (similar to how when solving ##u = sin(w)## you have solutions ##w_n = \arcsin(u) + 2n\pi##).

See if you can manipulate your equation ##z = e^z## into the form ##(\mbox{some number} = (\mbox{something} \times z) \exp((\mbox{something} \times z))##, in which case your solution will be ##z = W_n(\mbox{some number})/\mbox{something}##.

In fact, the infinite tower

$$z^{z^{z^\ldots}}$$

can also be written in terms of the Lambert-W function (though for complex numbers z it is a definition). For real numbers, the infinite tower only converges to a non-infinite real number on a small range of z. The two approaches will agree for your case of z = e.
Edit: Sorry for my ignorance. From the equation e^z=z, it is simple to show that this is an equivalent statement as -z*e^-z=-1.

This means that z=-Wn(-1)... but what is this value? And what "branch" of the W function are we working with? Sorry that I don't really understand this; I am merely in Calculus.

By the way, where might I go to learn how to type some basic math symbols? (e.g. integrals, exponents, fractions, etc)
 
Last edited:
By the way, on the wikipedia article, it is noted that W(-1) is approximately -.31813-1.33723i, so my answer is just the negative of this. What is the n value in this case? Also, where do these values come from? Is there an exact value for w(z) when z is a real? How about w(a+bi)?
 
piercebeatz said:
By the way, on the wikipedia article, it is noted that W(-1) is approximately -.31813-1.33723i, so my answer is just the negative of this. What is the n value in this case? Also, where do these values come from? Is there an exact value for w(z) when z is a real? How about w(a+bi)?

If you go to www.wolfraalpha.com and enter "-ProductLog[n,-1]" in the search bar (without the quotation marks), where n is the "branch", it will evaluate the W function for the different branches, so you can see what some of the values are. In a problem like there, there is no one correct branch. There are simply infinitely many possible solutions to the equation z = exp(z).

Here's a link for ##-W_0(-1)##: Link.

There are some special values of z real for which W(z) has an exact value. Some are listed on the wikipedia page. In general, the solution is a complex number with no known exact expression.

Only the branches n = 0 and n = -1 give real valued outputs for real valued inputs.

You'll find that everything you try gives you a complex number. As you probably know from looking at plots of x and exp(x), there is no intersection so there is no real valued answer to z = exp(z). Also, the "power tower" that you derived, for real numbers z = x,

$$x^{x^{x^\ldots}}$$
only has a (finite-valued) solution on ##e^{-e} \leq x \leq e^{1/e}##. Since x = e is not in this range, there is no real solution.

To learn how to type in ##\LaTeX## (the equation typesetting language used on this board), this pdf will teach you some basic commands. You can also see how people write their equations by quoting their post.

Note that for inline equations, [ itex] stuff [ /itex] is equivalent to # # stuff # # (without spaces betweeen the hashtags or tags) and for full big equations [ tex] stuff [ /tex] is equivalent to $ $ stuff $ $ (without spaces between the dollar signs or tags).
 
Last edited:
Mute said:
If you go to www.wolfraalpha.com and enter "-ProductLog[n,-1]" in the search bar (without the quotation marks), where n is the "branch", it will evaluate the W function for the different branches, so you can see what some of the values are. In a problem like there, there is no one correct branch. There are simply infinitely many possible solutions to the equation z = exp(z).

Here's a link for ##-W_0(-1)##: Link.

There are some special values of z real for which W(z) has an exact value. Some are listed on the wikipedia page. In general, the solution is a complex number with no known exact expression.

Only the branches n = 0 and n = -1 give real valued outputs for real valued inputs.

You'll find that everything you try gives you a complex number. As you probably know from looking at plots of x and exp(x), there is no intersection so there is no real valued answer to z = exp(z). Also, the "power tower" that you derived, for real numbers z = x,

$$x^{x^{x^\ldots}}$$
only has a (finite-valued) solution on ##e^{-e} \leq x \leq e^{1/e}##. Since x = e is not in this range, there is no real solution.

To learn how to type in ##\LaTeX## (the equation typesetting language used on this board), this pdf will teach you some basic commands. You can also see how people write their equations by quoting their post.

Note that for inline equations, [ itex] stuff [ /itex] is equivalent to # # stuff # # (without spaces betweeen the hashtags or tags) and for full big equations [ tex] stuff [ /tex] is equivalent to $ $ stuff $ $ (without spaces between the dollar signs or tags).

Thanks. So is it impossible to calculate exact values of Wn(z) for all numbers? By looking at the link you posted, it appears that the values of Wn(z) are calculated by an improper integral. Is this the case, similar to the gamma function?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K