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.

I just read the question Why does $\ln(x) = \epsilon x$ have 2 solutions?, and thought I'd point out a related area of investigation. The equation $\log x=\epsilon x$ has 2 solutions for $\epsilon>0$, and the first one admits a simple asymptotic form, $x=1+\epsilon+3\epsilon^2/2+\cdots$ . The interesting one is the solution near infinity, whose asymptotic form, to leading order, is

$$x=\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left(\frac1\alpha+\beta(1-\alpha+\alpha^2)+\frac12\alpha^2\beta^2\right)+O(\epsilon),$$

where $\alpha^{-1}=\log\epsilon-i\pi$ and $\beta=\log\alpha$. I've simplified this equation as much as possible, whose origin is Mathematica, but how in the world would one go about proving this? Note that the exact solution is $x=-\frac1\epsilon W_{-1}(-\epsilon)$, so this question is related to the asymptotics of the Lambert W function.

share|improve this question
    
I think you're a bit confused. If you're taking $\epsilon < 0$ and you want $\alpha$ and $\beta$ to be real, try $\alpha = \log(-\epsilon)$ and $\beta = \log(-\alpha)$. –  Robert Israel Dec 10 '12 at 1:55
    
Sorry, in my attempted simplification of the Mathematica result, I did some unjustified removal of some complex stuff. Technically what I wrote is correct, but with $\epsilon$ negative, it's quite ambiguous. I'll fix it, and use $\epsilon$ positive too, since it's no help. –  Mario Carneiro Dec 10 '12 at 2:44
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Despite your claim that the negative sign makes things easier, I'll write the equation as $$\log(x) = \delta x$$ with $\delta > 0$ and small. You're interested in $x \to +\infty$, so write $x = t/\delta$. The equation becomes $\log(t) - \log(\delta) = t$, or $$\log(t) + \eta = t$$ where $\eta = -\log(\delta) \to +\infty$. Since $\log(t)$ is small compared to $t$ when $t$ is large, the zero-order approximation would be $t = \eta$. If $t = \eta + t_1$ with $t_1 = o(\eta)$, the equation becomes $$ t_1 = \log(\eta + t_1) = \log(\eta (1 + t_1/\eta)) = \log(\eta) + o(1)$$ So the next approximation is $t_1 \approx \log(\eta)$. If $t_1 = \log(\eta) + t_2$, the equation becomes $$\eqalign{ t_2 &= \log(\eta + \log(\eta) + t_2) - \log(\eta) = \log\left(1 + \frac{\log(\eta)}{\eta} + \frac{t_2}{\eta}\right)\cr &= \frac{\log(\eta)}{\eta} + \frac{t_2}{\eta} + \frac{(\log(\eta)+t_2)^2}{2\eta^2} + \ldots}$$ so the next approximation is $t_2 = \log(\eta)/\eta + t_3/\eta$ with $t_3 = o(1)$. I'll stop at this point, but you could continue. Putting it together, $$ x = \frac{-\ln(\delta)}{\delta} + \frac{\ln(-\ln(\delta))}{\delta} - \frac{\ln(-\ln(\delta))}{\delta \ln(\delta)} + \ldots $$

share|improve this answer
    
Just to clarify, you have $t_1=\Theta(\log\eta)=\Theta(\log(-\log\epsilon))$, $t_2=\Theta(\frac{\log\eta}\eta)$, and $t_3=\Theta(\frac{\log^2\eta}\eta)$, so that the $\cdots$ in your equation for $x$ is $\Theta(e^\eta\log^2\eta/\eta^2)=\Theta(\log^2(-\log\epsilon)/(\epsilon\log^2 \epsilon))$. So my question is whether in a finite number of terms this can be brought down to $O(1)$. –  Mario Carneiro Dec 10 '12 at 5:24
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.