1
$\begingroup$

I just found by numerical heuristics for some systematic numbers $q(x)_\text{heuristical}$ depending on $x=1,2,3,4,\ldots$ using WolframAlpha the suggested interpretation in terms of the LambertW-function, such that the suggestive formula for my various examples of $q(x)$ was: $$ q(x)_\text{LambertW} = {-x \over W(-x \exp(-x))} \tag 1$$ Here $-x$ was not equal to $q(x)$ and thus the value and the formula as well was an interesting item, so I wrote that formula for the most likely analytic explanation of my heuristical values $q$ in my current small treatize.
Here is a short table $$\small \begin{array} {} x & q(x)_\text{heuristical} & q(x)_\text{LambertW} & \text{err} \\ \hline 0.250000 & 0.096649 & 1.00000 & -0.903350 \\ 0.500000 & 0.284668 & 1.00000 & -0.715332 \\ 0.750000 & 0.576834 & 1.00000 & -0.423166 \\ \hline 1.00000 & 1.00000 & 1.00000 & -1.47621E-21 \\ 1.25000 & 1.59076 & 1.59076 & \epsilon \\ 1.50000 & 2.39700 & 2.39700 & \epsilon \\ 1.75000 & 3.48066 & 3.48066 & \epsilon \\ 2.00000 & 4.92155 & 4.92155 & \epsilon \\ 2.25000 & 6.82233 & 6.82233 & \epsilon \\ 2.50000 & 9.31487 & 9.31487 & \epsilon \\ 2.75000 & 12.5686 & 12.5686 & \epsilon \\ 3.00000 & 16.8010 & 16.8010 & \epsilon \\ 3.25000 & 22.2915 & 22.2915 & \epsilon \\ 3.50000 & 29.3986 & 29.3986 & \epsilon \\ 3.75000 & 38.5828 & 38.5828 & \epsilon \end{array} $$ ("$\epsilon$" being machine/software-epsilon; for the limit and a graph of the function see W/A)

After a second read I got now aware that the denominator clearly should equal $-x$ by the definition of the LambertW, and so it should $q(x) = 1$ for all cases. Urrgh...
Well, LambertW is multivalued, so I looked in the exact definition at mathworld and tried then negative $x$ to make the argument of the LambertW a positive value, and of course for $x \lt 1$ we have indeed the identity $q=-x$ in (1) but $x=1$ is a special point.

So I think I should "polish" my written text around the formula for that positive $x \gt 1$. But also using the notation for the first branch does not recover $q=-x$ and on the other hand the $q \ne -x$ for $x \gt 1$ seem to be completely natural evaluations.

So I'm a bit disorientated and my question is ...

Q: ... how should I formulate this for the reader so that no irritation would occur?

[Added]: In mathworld there is a close relative to the LambertW shown as $$h(z)=-{W(-\ln z)\over \ln z}$$ and I recall a discussion somewhere that in some cases the $h(z)$ -function might be preferable over the expression by the LambertW - but do not exactly remember the scope of that proposal.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Q: ... how should I formulate this for the reader so that no irritation would occur?

Hallo Gottfried,

it's a bit tricky to get such identities to work, without knowing the exact range of $W$. The trick is twofold: The main functional identity (for the inverse) is:

$$W_k(z)\cdot\exp(W_k(z))=z, k\in\mathbb{Z}$$

and is valid throughout and for all branches, while the reverse identity (for the inverse) is valid only within the strip-domain ranges of $W_k$. That is, the identities:

$$W_k(z\cdot\exp(z))=z,k\in\mathbb{Z}(*)$$

are only valid for $z\in D_k$, where $D_k$ are the corresponding strip-domains in the Quadratrix of Hippias, which is shown below, which are labeled with $k\in\mathbb{Z}$:

enter image description here.

The exact delimitations of the strips where these identities hold are given as curves $D_k$ and the corresponding identities are given in Lemma 2.6 here.

Within the unique strip-domain $D_0$, we have $W_0(z\cdot \exp(z))=z$, but if you switch strip-domains you have to switch identities, as per (*).

As you can see from the graph, point $z=-1$ is a little special, because it is a branch point which is shared by the principal branch and the branch $k=-1$. The ray $(-\infty,-1)$ as well as the lower part of the delimiting curve of the principal branch are part of the $k=-1$ branch.

So, for example, when you try with Maple:

W:=(k,z)->LambertW(k,z);
W(-1,-5*exp(-5));
-5

or:

W(-1,-1*exp(-1));
-1

and because $x=-1$ is a shared branch point between the $k=0$ and $k=-1$ branches, check also that:

W(0,-1*exp(-1));
-1

But for $x<-1$ it is $\mathit{not}$ true that $W_0(x\cdot \exp(x))=x$, as is dictated by the identities (*).

For your second question:

and I recall a discussion somewhere that in some cases the h(z) -function might be preferable over the expression by the LambertW..

The utility function $h(z)=\frac{W_k(-\ln(z))}{-\ln(z)}$ is used only because it provides a partial inverse to the power tower ${^\infty}z$, in terms of the $W_k$ function branches. Otherwise it has no relation with the $W$ function perse.

Gottfried,

for your second comment:

If you set your $q$ as:

$$q_k(z)=\frac{z}{W_k(z\cdot\exp(z))},z\in D_k$$

then you'd be getting the identity function, because in each strip-domain $D_k$, you'd have:

$$W_k(z\cdot\exp(z))=z\Rightarrow q_k(z)=1,\forall z\in D_k$$

Similarly if you set it as:

$$q_k(z)=\frac{-z}{W_k(-z\cdot\exp(-z))},z\in D_k$$

you'd again get the identity function, because the curves of the Quadratrix are given as:

$$f(y)=-y\cot(y)+yi\Rightarrow\\$$ $$f(-y)=y\cot(-y)-yi=-y\cot(y)-yi=\overline{f(y)}\Rightarrow$$ $$q_k(z)=1,\forall z\in D_k$$

Concluding, if $w=\pm z$, then

$$q_k(w)=\frac{w}{W_k(w\cdot\exp(w))}\Rightarrow q_k(w)=1,\forall w\in D_k$$

Which means this only gives you the identity function throughout $\mathbb{C}$, unless $w\notin D_k$, in which case your $q_k$ will be some sort of conjugation ratio of $w$ over what another branch gives for what should be $w$, but isn't. I have no idea how you can use that, as a continuation of sorts.

Note however that a "continuation" of $W_k$ already exists, by Taylor's Theorem. The principal branch of $W_0$ is analytic at the origin and has a Maclaurin series there. Therefore $W_k$'s "continuation" is the standard Taylor series around any wanted point $z_0$ on the principal branch (or any other branch) modulo the corresponding branch cut on the negative axis ($(-\infty,-1/e)$ for principal, $(-\infty,0)$ for others) and modulo your winding number around the origin.

You know $W_k^{(n)}(z)=\frac{d^n W_k(z)}{dz^n}$, therefore choose a path from 0 to $z_0\in D_0$ and go there and find the corresponding Taylor series expansion around $z_0$. It will be:

$$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{W_k^{(n)}(z_0)}{n!}\cdot (z-z_0)^n$$

You just have to be a little careful and note when you cross branches while going to your $z_0$. If you repeat the process and wind your path around 0, you are winding up once and are passing to either branch 1 or -1, depending on your direction. So, the "standard" analytic continuation covers all the branches of $W$ (For more on this, here).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Ioannis, good explanation; and so, also the $h(x)$ doesn't give hope. Hmmm. Perhaps it's best to write about that branching at $x=1$ and insert a "case-clause" in the text. I'll see... $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Jun 30 '14 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm, another thought: doesn't this look, as if the function which leads to the numbers $q$ could be understood as a continuation of the LambertW for the range $0 \lt x \lt 1$, where LambertW is constant $1$? The $q(x)$ which I compute is a limit-expression dependent on $x$ but also on the value of $n$ when this goes to infinity and for which there is also a power series whose $n$ leading terms are fixed and the power series is related to that for the LambertW in some form which I'm still investigating. So from that powerseries perhaps a continuation for the $W$ might be possible? $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Jul 1 '14 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Ioannis, I've just "accepted" that answer; could you please take also a short look at my further understanding now and the picture (which I've done into a full answering box because it's too long for a comment)? $\endgroup$ – Gottfried Helms Jul 4 '14 at 1:11
0
$\begingroup$

I think I've now sufficiently understood the source of the problem and think I can formulate the explanation in my text better, thanks to the answer of Ioannis.
Here is a graph of the curves along the formula, which generates the $q_n(x)_\text{emp}$ when $n$ is taken to the limit towards $\infty$, and the curve for the expression $q(x)_\text{LambertW}$ by the LambertW-reference: picture

[Update]: The treatize, where I deal with this in more length&width is here . The page where my question is related to is at page 8 to 9

$\endgroup$

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.