Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let m and n be positive integers.

Let $f(m,0)=m$

Let $f(m,n)= e \ln(f(m,n-1))$

$$\lim_{m\to\infty} \ln(m)\Big(f(m,\lfloor\ln m\rfloor)) - e\Big) = 163^{1/3}+C$$

Where $C$ is a constant.

It seems $0.005 > C > 0$

Is this true ? Why is this so ? Is $C = 0$ ?

Is this an analogue to the computation of the Paris constant ?

Can we give a closed form for $C$ ?

EDIT :

Conjecture :

$$\lim_{m\to\infty} \ln(m)\Big(f(m,\lfloor\ln m\rfloor)) - e\Big) = A$$

$A > 0$

Is this true ? How to prove this ?

share|improve this question
5  
Are you just making this up, or do you have a source? –  Pedro Tamaroff Sep 7 '12 at 20:14
1  
What does it have to do with tetration or dynamical systems? –  tomasz Sep 7 '12 at 20:23
    
repeatedly doing exp or ln is clearly tetration related. If you dont agree , plz give a definition of tetration and show the evidence of that definition. –  mick Sep 7 '12 at 20:28
    
You still haven't given us even the remotest reason why you think this is ture. –  Thomas Andrews Sep 7 '12 at 20:48
5  
@mick What does this new sentence even mean? "The limit is taken in the sense that ln(x) > n" does not mean anything, as far as my mathematical experience goes. –  Thomas Andrews Sep 7 '12 at 21:26
show 11 more comments

5 Answers

Let $h(x)=e\ln x$. If $x>e$ then $h(x)>e$. On the other hand, $h(x)\ge x$ iff $\frac{\ln x}x\ge\frac1e$, and $\frac{d}{dx}\left(\frac{\ln x}x\right)=\frac{1-\ln x}{x^2}<0$ for $x>e$, so $h(x)<x$ for $x>e$. Thus, for any $x>e$ the sequence $\langle h^n(x):n\in\Bbb N\rangle$ is decreasing and bounded below by $e$, so it converges. (Here $h^n$ is the $n$-th iteration of $h$.) Its limit $g(x)$ must be a fixed point of $h$.

Now $\frac{d}{dx}(x-e\ln x)=1-\frac{e}x$, so $x-f(x)$ has a minimum at $x=e$, where it is $0$. In other words, $x=e$ is the only fixed point of $h$. In other words, $g(x)=e$ for all $x\ge e$, and $\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac1{g(x)-e}$ does not exist.

share|improve this answer
add comment

This is not true. For any $x$, eventually $f(n)$ will fail to be defined (and for any reasonable sized $x$, rather quickly). For $x=10^{23}$ it only takes five steps. $\lim_{n \to \infty} f(x)$ does not exist.

Added: Your notation is confusing. It would be better to give $f$ arguments of $n$ and $x$, so $f(0,x)=x, f(n,x)=e \ln (f(n-1,x)$, which I will use. I still don't believe the result with the $e$ multiplying. If $f(n,x)=e+\delta$, (thinking of $\delta$ as small), $f(n+1,x)\approx e+\delta-\frac {\delta^2}{2e^2}$ so $\lim_{n \to \infty}f(n,x)$ must be the fixed point of your function, which is $e$.

share|improve this answer
    
removed a typo , now its true. sorry –  mick Sep 7 '12 at 20:21
1  
@mick: It certainly is. The successive values of $f$ are approximately $10^{23},19.48269549699,1.092427808658,0.03252148686231$, and $-1.260301355808$. –  Brian M. Scott Sep 7 '12 at 20:21
1  
@mick I think that is because you changed the question from divided by $e$ to multiplied by $e$. –  William Sep 7 '12 at 20:36
2  
@mick: but it still isn't –  Ross Millikan Sep 7 '12 at 21:08
1  
It's not now true. It's clear that $g(x)=e$ for all $x$, so your limit not only doesn't exist, it actually is undefined for all $x$. –  Thomas Andrews Sep 7 '12 at 21:12
show 7 more comments

Write $k(m) = \ln(m)\big(f(m,\lfloor \ln(m)\rfloor)-e\big)$. Here is a graph of $k\big(10^{\displaystyle 10^x}\big)$ according to Maple. The horizontal line is $163^{1/3}$.

enter image description here

I see no reason to think $163^{1/3}$ has anything to do with the limit.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your plot. It seems different programs and precisions have quite an influance. Considering your data as correct , i get about 1/3 value higher ( overal quite equidist ). So i would dare to replace 163^(1/3) to 163^(1/3)-1/3 as the limit. The plot suggests that there is a limit > 0 i feel , not ? Anyone dare to conjecture 5 :) What version of maple are you using ? –  mick Sep 8 '12 at 22:33
    
It should be $k(m) = \ln(m)\big(f(m,\lfloor \ln m\rfloor)-e\big)$ –  Fabian Sep 9 '12 at 4:01
    
@Fabian: fixed, thanks. @ mich: Maple 16. –  GEdgar Sep 9 '12 at 13:16
add comment

It is intresting to note that if we replace (in the limit) $m$ by $m+O(m^{\frac{1}{2}})$ we would arrive at the same value. This leads to the simplification in the limit : replace both $log(m)$ by $m$.

This is probably the first step.

The second step is probably finding a good taylor series (converging for the desired interval) and error term for $e$ $ log(m)$ so that the rate of $f(m,m)$ can be expressed.

This problem them resembles many other problems concerning iterations and limits and should thus be solvable. I note that $exp(\dfrac{x}{e})$ has a parabolic fixpoint.

Not a solution yet but worth it imho.

share|improve this answer
add comment

In case this helps (too long for comment): Letting $h_n(x) = f_n(x)/e$ we get $h_1(x) = 1 +\log(x)$, $h_2(x) = 1 + \log(1 + \log(x))$, etc-

So $h_n(x) = L^{[n]}(x)$ where $L^{[n]}$ is the function $1 +\log(\cdot)$ composed with itself $n$ times. Clearly $L^{\infty}(x)= 1$ for any $x$.

But what the OP wants (I'm starting to suspect) is to find

$$\lim_{x\to \infty} L ^{\lfloor \log(x) \rfloor} (x)$$

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.