B Notation for infinite iteration

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ssnow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Notation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding appropriate notation for the infinite self-iteration of an analytic function, denoted as f(f(f(...))). While f^{(+\infty)}(x) is suggested, participants highlight that there is no universally recognized notation among mathematicians. The notation f^{(n+1)}(x) is commonly used but requires explicit definition to avoid confusion. An alternative proposed by a participant is the operator notation \bigcirc_{n=1}^\infty f, which effectively represents infinite compositions. The conversation emphasizes the importance of defining any chosen notation clearly to ensure understanding.
Ssnow
Science Advisor
Messages
573
Reaction score
182
TL;DR Summary
I want to know what are the possible notations for the infinite self-iteraction of a function
Hi Physics Forum, I want to ask if there is an "appropriate" notation for the infinite self-iteraction of an analytic function ##f(x)##, that is ##f(f(f(...)))##. For example I know ##f^{(+\infty)}(x)## can be a way, but there is an operator notation as for the infinite sum ##\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}f_{n}## ...
Thank you,
Ssnow
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Ssnow said:
Summary: I want to know what are the possible notations for the infinite self-iteraction of a function

Hi Physics Forum, I want to ask if there is an "appropriate" notation for the infinite self-iteraction of an analytic function ##f(x)##, that is ##f(f(f(...)))##. For example I know ##f^{(+\infty)}(x)## can be a way, but there is an operator notation as for the infinite sum ##\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}f_{n}## ...
Thank you,
Ssnow
The sum is usually not abbreviated, except you simply call it ##S.## The iterations have to be defined in order to avoid confusion. You already used the most common usage: ##f^{(n+1)}(x):=f^{(n)}(f(x)).## Since ##f^{(n+1)}(x) ## is often used as ##f^{(n+1)}(x)=\dfrac{d}{dx}f^{(n)}(x),## it requires an explicit definition. Hence, after defining it, you have
$$
S(x):=\sum_{k=1}^\infty f^{(k)}(x)
$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Janosh89, topsquark and FactChecker
I do not think there is a notation whose meaning would be commonly recognized by mathematicians. I recommend that you clearly define one of your own where you need it.
UPDATE: I think that @pasmith's notation, ##\bigcirc_{n=1}^\infty f##, in post #4 serves the purpose very well and might be a standard that I was not familiar with.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes topsquark and Ssnow
Ssnow said:
Summary: I want to know what are the possible notations for the infinite self-iteraction of a function

Hi Physics Forum, I want to ask if there is an "appropriate" notation for the infinite self-iteraction of an analytic function ##f(x)##, that is ##f(f(f(...)))##. For example I know ##f^{(+\infty)}(x)## can be a way, but there is an operator notation as for the infinite sum ##\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}f_{n}## ...
Thank you,
Ssnow

Code:
\DeclareMathOperator{bigcomp}{\bigcirc}
\begin{split}
\bigcomp_{n=1}^N f_n &= f_N \circ f_{N - 1} \circ \cdots \circ f_2 \circ f_1  \\
\bigcomp_{n=1}^\infty f &= f \circ f \circ f \circ \cdots \end{split}

<br /> \DeclareMathOperator{bigcomp}{\bigcirc}<br /> \begin{split}<br /> \bigcomp_{n=1}^N f_n &amp;= f_N \circ f_{N_-1} \circ \cdots \circ f_2 \circ f_1 \\<br /> \bigcomp_{n=1}^\infty f &amp;= f \circ f \circ f \circ \cdots \end{split}<br /> (It seemed logical to apply f_1 first and f_N last.)

There may be a way to make LaTeX put the limits above and below the \bigcomp in displayed formulas, but \limits on its own won't do it.

It is, however, incredibly easy for the limit to not exist, as for example if f : [0,1] \to [0,1] : x \mapsto 4x(1-x) and x_0 falls on one of the many unstable periodic orbits of that map, or falls on the chaotic attractor.
 
  • Like
Likes Ssnow and FactChecker
I think the notation of @pasmith is appropriate,
thank you!
Ssnow
 
\mathop L\limits_{k = 1}^n {g_k}(z) = {g_n} \circ {g_{n - 1}} \circ \cdots \circ {g_1}(z)
{G_n}(z) = \mathop R\limits_{k = 1}^n {g_k}(z)\mathop L\limits_{k = 1}^\infty {g_k}(z) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } {G_n}(z)
and
\mathop R\limits_{k = 1}^n {f_k}(z) = {f_1} \circ {f_2} \circ \cdots \circ {f_n}(z), {F_n}(z) = \mathop R\limits_{k = 1}^n {f_k}(z)
\mathop R\limits_{k = 1}^\infty {f_k}(z) = \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } {F_n}(z)
See the Wikipedia article on infinite compositions of analytic functions. There is a fairly well developed elementary theory of infinite compositions of complex functions, even functions in Banach spaces.
 
Last edited:
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top