30
$\begingroup$

If I have the function $f(x)$ and I want to apply it $n$ times, what is the notation to use?

For example, would $f(f(x))$ be $f_2(x)$, $f^2(x)$, or anything less cumbersome than $f(f(x))$? This is important especially since I am trying to couple this with a limit toward infinity.

$\endgroup$
23
$\begingroup$

You could define the notation recursively as a sequence of functions.

Let $f_{n+1}(x) = f(f_n(x))$ for $n \geq 2$ with $f_1(x) = f(x)$.

Sequence notation of this type is so generic that the reader will be forced to consult your definition, which will avoid any possible misinterpretation.

$\endgroup$
45
$\begingroup$

In the course I took on bifurcation theory we used the notation $$f^{\circ n}(x).$$

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is the notation I prefer, no matter what the commonest usage is. $\endgroup$ – Lubin Nov 30 '12 at 3:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I wonder if my professor invented this notation (he also wrote the textbook for the class, so it's hard to say). It makes sense, as $\circ$ is the notation for function composition. I personally prefer just $f^n(x)$, though, when the context is clear. Writing all those $\circ$s gets a little annoying after a while :) $\endgroup$ – asmeurer Nov 30 '12 at 3:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I like this a lot I have to say +1 $\endgroup$ – Simon Hayward Nov 30 '12 at 9:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, nice! Unconventional, but unambiguous and nearly self-explanatory to anyone familiar with ∘ and the standard superscript notation. $\endgroup$ – camccann Nov 30 '12 at 15:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fine for some people, but not entirely unambigous; the $\circ$ could be mistaken for zero, especially by those unfamiliar with it; and it's not something that's easy to look up. You would still need to define the notation unless you're sure of your audience. $\endgroup$ – LarsH Nov 30 '12 at 16:13
31
$\begingroup$

You can use the notation $f^n$ to denote the composition of the function with itself $n$ times, though this may also mean the product of $f$ with itself $n$ times. Just make sure you define your notation at the start.

$\endgroup$
17
$\begingroup$

You can use $f^n(x)$ BUT be sure to tell the reader that you mean functional iteration, not $(f(x))^n$.

$\endgroup$
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ Also not $f^{(n)}(x)$ :D $\endgroup$ – Simon Hayward Nov 30 '12 at 9:30
15
$\begingroup$

If you take function iteration as a fold of self-composition, you can use a sum-like notation:

$\bigcirc^nf = \underbrace{f \circ \dots \circ f}_{n\:\text{times}}$

Where:

$\left({\bigcirc^0f}\right)(x) = x$

Granted, this is not very compact, and I would prefer to typeset the limit directly above the circle. That aside, it does combine tolerably with limit notation:

$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\bigcirc^nf$

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

There are two common notations for this, in two different communities:

  1. People in quantum physics, functional analysis and similar topics write everything without parentheses and for them, naturally $B^2x=BBx=B(B(x))$.

  2. Some people in albegra treat functions as "modifiers" and when $\alpha$ is a function, then they write the image of $x$ by $\alpha$ as $x\alpha$. For them, $x\alpha^2$ is what I would write $\alpha(\alpha(x))$.

At any case, as others mention, you can use whatever you like, as long as you clarify your notations at the beginning. If you need it a lot, I would go for one of $$f^n(x),\qquad f_n(x),\qquad f^{\circ n}(x),\qquad f^{[n]}(x).$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Though most people do 1. only with linear functions (and seldom call them functions but operators). $\endgroup$ – leftaroundabout Dec 1 '12 at 17:34
4
$\begingroup$

You may also use Lagrange's notation of derivative $\ f^{(n)}(x)\ $ instead of more commonly used notations $\ f^n(x)\ $ or $\ f_n(x)\ $.

EDIT:
Or you can use left indices: $\ ^n f(x)\ $ or $\ _n f(x)\ $ or $\ ^{(n)} f(x)\ $ or $\ _{(n)} f(x)\ $.

$\endgroup$
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ Wouldn't using Lagrange's notation be confusing since it already has a purpose? I don't want to make something analogous to $f^{-1}(f(x))=x$. That's a nightmare. $\endgroup$ – JShoe Nov 30 '12 at 2:52
1
$\begingroup$

There is a notation proposal for iteration of functions. Check if the following can be useful for your purposes: Salov, Valerii. "Notation for Iteration of Functions, Iteral", arXiv:1207.0152, June 30, 2012, https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0152; Salov, Valerii. "Inevitable Dottie Number. Iterals of cosine and sine", arXiv:1212.1027, December 1, 2012, https://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1027.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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