06-1350/Some Equations by Kurlin: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
** If there aren't further ones, this is a lovely "closure" property enjoyed by exponentials. How come I don't know it yet? |
** If there aren't further ones, this is a lovely "closure" property enjoyed by exponentials. How come I don't know it yet? |
||
* Assuming not all tame equations have tame solutions, what was special about our equation, that lead to the existance of a tame solution? Can you write a very general condition on tame equations that will ensure the existance of a tame solution? |
* Assuming not all tame equations have tame solutions, what was special about our equation, that lead to the existance of a tame solution? Can you write a very general condition on tame equations that will ensure the existance of a tame solution? In other words, was Kurlin simply lucky that his equation had a tame solution (and clever that he found it!), or are there some general rules that guarded him against the wilderness? |
||
{{note|Kurlin}} ''Compressed Drinfel'd Associators,'' V. Kurlin, {{arXiv|math.GT/0408398}}. |
{{note|Kurlin}} ''Compressed Drinfel'd Associators,'' V. Kurlin, {{arXiv|math.GT/0408398}}. |
||
Revision as of 17:58, 17 September 2006
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Claim [Kurlin]. The function [math]\displaystyle{ f(\lambda,\mu) }[/math] defined by
[math]\displaystyle{ 1+2\lambda\mu f(\lambda,\mu) = \frac{e^{\lambda+\mu}-e^{-\lambda-\mu}}{2(\lambda+\mu)} \left(\frac{2\lambda}{e^\lambda-e^{-\lambda}}+\frac{2\mu}{e^\mu-e^{-\mu}}-1\right) }[/math]
Satisfies
[math]\displaystyle{ f(\lambda,\mu)+e^\mu f(\mu,-\lambda-\mu)+e^{-\lambda}f(\lambda,-\lambda-\mu) = \frac{1}{\lambda+\mu} \left(\frac{e^\mu-1}{\mu}+\frac{e^{-\lambda}-1}{\lambda}\right). }[/math]
If this class is successful, at some point in the future I will tell you why I care. But meanwhile a few questions to expose my ignorance of simple algebra. Note that [math]\displaystyle{ f }[/math] is is a rational function in its variables and their exponentials. Let's call such functions "tame". The equation [math]\displaystyle{ f }[/math] satisfies involves rational expressions in the variables and their exponentials and linear substitutions applied to [math]\displaystyle{ f }[/math]. Let us call such equations "tame". (The equation is also linear in [math]\displaystyle{ f }[/math]. You may or may not include this in the definition of "tame"). So we see that a tame equation has a tame solution.
- Is that always the case?
- A prety example is the tame equation [math]\displaystyle{ e(x+y)=e(x)e(y) }[/math], whose solution is the "first" transcendental function [math]\displaystyle{ e^x }[/math].
- Are we done defining "new" special functions after we've defined [math]\displaystyle{ e^x }[/math] or are there further ones that cannot be defined in terms of it?
- If there are further ones, why haven't we heard about them? Or else, where do we read about them?
- If there aren't further ones, this is a lovely "closure" property enjoyed by exponentials. How come I don't know it yet?
- Assuming not all tame equations have tame solutions, what was special about our equation, that lead to the existance of a tame solution? Can you write a very general condition on tame equations that will ensure the existance of a tame solution? In other words, was Kurlin simply lucky that his equation had a tame solution (and clever that he found it!), or are there some general rules that guarded him against the wilderness?
[Kurlin] ^ Compressed Drinfel'd Associators, V. Kurlin, arXiv:math.GT/0408398.