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!

Naked ladies

  1. Nov 25, 2003 #1
    what are all the functions [tex]f[/tex] that satisfy the following
    relations that you can think of?

    [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty}\frac{f\left( x\right) }{2^{x}}=0[/tex]

    [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty}\frac{x^{n}}{f\left( x\right) }=0[/tex] for all [tex]n\in N[/tex].
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 25, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Any function that satisfies
    \lim_{x \rightarrow \infinity} x^{n+\epsilon} < f(x) < 2^{x*(1-\epsilon)}
    works. There are [tex]\mathbb{R}^\mathbb{R}[/tex] such functions.

    Perhaps you had something more specific in mind?
  4. Nov 25, 2003 #3
    how about infinitely differentiable functions defined on some set containing (0,oo)?
  5. Nov 26, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    How about f(x) = a^x : For all a in (1..2).

    I'm sure there are other functions, but hey that's a start. :)
  6. Nov 26, 2003 #5
    thank you. actually, i was thinking xq2bx where b is in (0,1) and q is anything. i think xq may possibly be replaced by any laurant series convergent on [0,oo) but i haven't thought much about that one yet. i can also add a few other 2cx in there as long as all the c's are in (0,1). the condition i'd really like to know if it's satisfiable is some function g and constant r such that g(2^x)=r g(x) that g is invertible with inverse G and f(x):=G(r1/2g(x)) satisfies those limit conditions.
  7. Nov 26, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    g(2x)=r means that g(x)=r for positive x, so if G is g inverse, then G(r1/2g(x))=G(r3/2) for positive x.
    So your f(x) will be poorly defined, undefined or less than or equal to zero for all x > 0, so it cannot meet your limit conditions.
  8. Nov 26, 2003 #7
    ok, how about if g(2^x)=r g(x), as originally stated? if g were constant, it wouldn't have an inverse, btw. in other words, if
    h(x)=2^x, i want to find an invertible g with inverse G such that
    g o h = rg on [0,oo) and such that f, defined to be
    G o (r.5g), satisfies all the conditions above. (note that f o f = h and i'm really secretly thinking about the half-iterate of 2^x like i am in that other thread.) i think the second limit condition (since it's true for all n) implies that all derivatives of f go to infinity which would seem to suggest that for all n in N we have [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty }\frac{f^{\left( n\right) }\left( x\right) }{2^{x}\left( \log 2\right) ^{n}}=0[/tex] and [tex]\lim_{x\rightarrow \infty }\frac{f^{\left( n\right) }\left( x\right) }{2^{x}}=0[/tex].
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2003
  9. Nov 26, 2003 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    [tex]{g(x)}^{-1} * g(log_2 x) = k[/tex]
    if you differentiate both sides, rearange, and use your identity, you get:
    clearly the latter is not acceptable.
    integrate both sides
    [tex]g(2^x)=cx+C=r g(x)[/tex]
    which contradicts your original assumption.
    Therefore there is no such non-zero function that is differentiable.
  10. Nov 26, 2003 #9
    question about something you wrote:
    if you differentiate both sides, rearange, and use your identity, you get:...

    instead of a constant on the right, i get rg'(x) which ends in no conlcusions cuz it just leads us back to g(2^x)=rg(x). one explanation is that you forgot to use the chain rule once and another is that i'm not understanding.
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2003
  11. Nov 26, 2003 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It's me being sloppy.

    How about this:

    Let's say we've got some n with 2^a=a. a exists by the mean value theorem since 2^0>0 and 2^1>1. Now, g(2^a)=g(a) so r=1 or g is not well defined. That means that g is not invertible.
  12. Nov 26, 2003 #11
    a wouldn't be a real number if 2^a=a (2^x > x for all real x). there doesn't seem to be a problem even if 2^x had real fixed points. if x is a fixed point of h (in the equation g o h = rg), it just means that r=1 (in which case, if g is invertible then h is the identity function and so if h is not the identity function then g is not invertible) or g(x)=0. but g wouldn't have to be identically 0 and hence not necessarily not invertible. when i define f to be
    G(r0.5g(x)), i guess i should add that r is not in {0,1} so that f is not the identity function f(x)=x or constant f(x)=G(0).

    if h does have fixed points, the advantage of expanding a series about a fixed point is that the constant term in the series for a g is 0. that doesn't seem to be a big deal though.
  13. Dec 13, 2003 #12
    looking for an [tex]f[/tex] such that [tex]f\circ g=rf[/tex] for some constant [tex]r[/tex] that isn't 0 or 1. especially for [tex]g\left( x\right) =2^{x}[/tex] with domain R and [tex]f[/tex] an invertible function with differentiable inverse (diffeomorphism?).

    if [tex]f[/tex] satisfies the equation, then so does [tex]kf[/tex] for any constant [tex]k[/tex] so without loss of generality, [tex]f\left( 0\right) =1.[/tex] i'm assuming here that for no [tex]f[/tex] is [tex]f\left( 0\right) =0[/tex] and i'm replacing [tex]f[/tex] with [tex]f/f\left( 0\right) [/tex].

    since [tex]f\left( 1\right) =f\left( 2^{0}\right) =rf\left( 0\right) =r[/tex], [tex]r=f\left( 1\right) [/tex]. also, under the right conditions, we have [tex]1=f\left( 0\right) =f\left( 2^{-\infty }\right) =f\left( 1\right) f\left( -\infty \right) [/tex], so [tex]f\left( -\infty \right) =1/f\left( 1\right) [/tex]. we also have that [tex]f\left( g^{n}\left( 0\right) \right) =f\left( 1\right) ^{n}[/tex] where the first [tex]n[/tex] repersents iteration and the second one is exponentiation. from [tex]g^{n}\left( x\right) =f^{-1}\left( f\left( 1\right) ^{n}f\left( x\right) \right) [/tex], we have a result about [tex]g^{n}[/tex]'s derivative:

    [tex]\left( g^{n}\right) ^{\prime }\left( x\right) =\frac{f\left( 1\right) ^{n}f^{\prime }\left( x\right) }{f^{\prime }\left( f^{-1}\left( f\left( 1\right) ^{n}f\left( x\right) \right) \right) }[/tex].

    if i could find either [tex]f\left( 1\right) [/tex] or the [tex]f[/tex] such that [tex]f\left( 0\right) =1[/tex] or determine that it can't exist, that'd be swell.
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2003
  14. Dec 14, 2003 #13

    similar to what koenings found in 1884...

    something that appears to solve some of the conditions above is [tex] f=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g^{n}}{f\left( 1\right) ^{n}}[/tex] . i take it that [tex] f\left( x\right)
    [/tex] would be [tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }
    \frac{g^{n}\left( x\right) }{f\left( 1\right) ^{n}}[/tex]. is that right? here, [tex] g^{n}[/tex] is the [tex] n[/tex]-th iterate of g.

    note that [tex] f\circ g=rf[/tex] where [tex] r=f\left( 1\right) [/tex] becomes [tex] \left( \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g^{n}}{f\left( 1\right) ^{n}}\right) \circ g=f\left( 1\right) \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\frac{g^{n}}{f\left( 1\right) ^{n}}[/tex] and since [tex]f\left( 1\right) >1[/tex] , we can divide by it to get [tex] \left( \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g^{n}}{f\left( 1\right)
    ^{n+1}}\right) \circ g=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g^{n}}{f\left( 1\right) ^{n}}[/tex], which appears valid if the left hand
    side reduces to [tex] \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g^{n+1}}{f\left( 1\right) ^{n+1}}[/tex]. does it?

    i would prefer it if this weren't the solution...

    i'm working on a value for [tex] f\left( 1\right)[/tex] when [tex] g\left( x\right) =2^{x}[/tex]. one thing i'm suspecting strongly is that [tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g^{n}\left( x\right) }{f\left( 1\right)^{n}}[/tex] does not exist for any [tex]x[/tex].
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2003
  15. Dec 16, 2003 #14
    Pardon my ignorance but what do "naked ladies" have to do with mathematics?

    Is it math slang that I haven't come across yet?
  16. Dec 16, 2003 #15
    when i write a paper on this, i think i'll call solutions to schroder's equation naked ladies due to their highly desirbale nature. either that or it was just a dumb ploy to make people read it. see how many views this thread got for yourself... i did that so i could get as much help as possible.
  17. Dec 16, 2003 #16
    lol Phoenix,

    I'll confess to the "highly desirable nature" but I was just confused by it.
  18. Dec 16, 2003 #17
    actually, the solution in that it depends on the iterates of g is highly undesirable. so this naked lady, while it appears to solve schroeder, it also appears to force f to be constant (oo, actually), which makes this naked lady not just a *****, or a biatch, or a biznitch, or even a bizniatch, but an ARCHbizniatch-atch , mathematically speaking, of course.
  19. Dec 16, 2003 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    For the record, I specifically avoided offering help on this thread because of the ploy.
  20. Dec 16, 2003 #19
  21. Dec 22, 2003 #20
    finding r and neccessary conditions

    i'm lead to believe that the following is a necessary condition on schroder's equation being solvable by arguments in nonstandard analysis (i also made a couple of assumptions):

    necessary condion for the existence of a solution:
    let [tex]h\left( x\right) :=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g\left( x^{n}\right) }{x^{n}}[/tex]. then the necessary condition is that h has a fixed point.

    furthermore, this is what r can be.

    so the full statement would be that if fog = rf, then [tex]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{g\left( r^{n}\right) }{r^{n}}=r[/tex].

    what do you think?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook