The ultimate beta method

[tommy1729]

\[
\psi(e^{100+i100}) = \frac{e^{\psi(100+i100)}}{1+e^{-100-i100}}
\]

And confirm it to 100 digits; and does so without requiring periodicity (it finds the value \(k\)).

Here is \(|\Re(z)| < 5\) and \(|\Im(z)| < 5\). It looks a lot like my original graphs from earlier today, but the numbers are much much much more exact!

Ok Im gonna be a pain in the ass again but

say x = exp(100 + 100 i)

then psi(x) = exp( psi(ln(x)) )/(1 + 1/x)

and from earlier posts of you the claim (essentially by substitution ) 

psi(x) = beta(ln(x) + 1)

But then

beta(ln(x) + 1) = exp ( beta( ln(ln(x)) + 1 ) )/ ( 1 + 1/x )

and thus

beta(x+1) = exp( beta (ln(x) + 1) )/ (1 + exp(-x) )

But that is not the beta function !

beta was more like 

beta(x+1) = exp( beta(x) ) / (1+exp(-x) )

or something

Also beta was not analytic right ?

SO beta(ln(x) + 1) = psi(x) is also not analytic !?


And I have not even considered the connections to kneser.


Sorry but I am the hidden final boss



regards

tommy1729

ps : 

btw i hate those pop science mags too ,
 bla bla revolution bla bla genius bla bla E=MC^2 bla bla but one smart researchers thinks he has a way to do it bla bla
  bla bla revolution bla bla genius bla bla time travel bla bla faster than light bla bla but maybe einstein was wrong bla bla or we misinterpreted him bla bla
CGI pictures bla bla

But no actual experiment or math in the whole article or whole magazine that proves or explaines anything.
Nobody will learn a darn thing, the eductated know more and the others are confused and think reading more will illuminate.
Science without good evidence or good math is BS.

Ok I added that to make you feel better lol 


[quote pid="12048" dateline="1681254902"]

\[
\psi(e^{100+i100}) = \frac{e^{\psi(100+i100)}}{1+e^{-100-i100}}
\]

And confirm it to 100 digits; and does so without requiring periodicity (it finds the value \(k\)).

Here is \(|\Re(z)| < 5\) and \(|\Im(z)| < 5\). It looks a lot like my original graphs from earlier today, but the numbers are much much much more exact!


[/quote]


[quote pid="12048" dateline="1681254902"]

\[
\psi(e^{100+i100}) = \frac{e^{\psi(100+i100)}}{1+e^{-100-i100}}
\]

And confirm it to 100 digits; and does so without requiring periodicity (it finds the value \(k\)).

Here is \(|\Re(z)| < 5\) and \(|\Im(z)| < 5\). It looks a lot like my original graphs from earlier today, but the numbers are much much much more exact!


[/quote]