Is there an interesting way to define a continuous composition of functions?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of extending the composition of functions to fractional orders, exploring how operations traditionally defined for integers might be adapted for real numbers. Participants consider both theoretical implications and potential methods for defining such compositions, including recursive sequences that converge to the identity function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose extending function composition to fractional orders, similar to how differentiation has been extended to fractional derivatives.
  • One participant suggests that trivial definitions exist, such as defining the 0-th composition as f(x) and the 1st as f(g(x)), but finds these uninteresting.
  • There is mention of sequences of functions that converge to the identity function, with a desire to understand how to start from an arbitrary function g(x) and apply these methods.
  • Another participant notes that extending functions from integers to reals is not unique without additional conditions, referencing various Wikipedia articles on related topics.
  • A specific definition is proposed where the k-th iterate of a function is analogous to the k-th power of a variable, leading to a suggestion for defining fractional compositions.
  • One participant outlines a potential definition for fractional composition, suggesting that f \circ_{[k]} g could be defined as f(g^{[k]}(x)).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various ideas and methods for defining fractional composition, but there is no consensus on a single approach or definition. The discussion remains open-ended with multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that the extension of function composition to fractional orders may depend on additional conditions and that the definitions proposed may not be unique.

Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Messages
7,864
Reaction score
1,605
People have found ways to extend the definition of some operations that are ostensibly discrete (such as differentiation - e.g. 1st, 2nd, 3rd derivatives) to operations that are defined for fractions ( e.g. fractional derivatives). Is there an interesting way to extend the operation of composing two functions to define such a fractional operation?

There are trivial ways. For example, the 0-th composition of f with g could be f(x). The 1st order composition could be f(g(x)). The 1/3 rd order could be (1/3) f(x) + (2/3) f(g(x)). But one could make a similar definition for almost any discrete operation and that sort of thing isn't very compelling.

In a recent thread on nested functions, it has been pointed out that there are many ways to define sequences of functions recursively such that the sequences converge to the identity function. If you visualize the sequences in reverse (so to speak) they go from x to some function g(x). Apply f() to such a sequence would go from f(x) to f(g(x)). However, I don't understand how to apply these methods to find a sequence that begins at an arbitrary g(x) and tends toward the identity function.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you have a link to the thread you are referring to?
 
Last edited:
lurflurf said:
Wikipedia has a few things

Those links pursue the rather natural idea that the k-th iterate of a function should be analogous to the kth power of a variable. So, for example, we define [itex]f^{[1/2]}(x)[/itex] to be a function [itex]r(x)[/itex] such that [itex]r(r(x)) = f(x)[/itex].

Now: how to apply that to the composition of two different function?

Suppose I want the 0th order composition of f with g to be [itex]f \circ_{[0]} g = f[/itex] and the 1-th order composition of f with g to be [itex]f \circ_{[1]} g = f(g(x))[/itex].

One possibility is to define [itex]f \circ_{[k]} g = f( g^{[k]}(x))[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K