diagonal vs regular
#8
Gottfried Wrote:My conversion/factorizing of the infinite square-matrix into a triangular one by similarity scaling (using powers of the pascal-matrix) applies to the infinite case. I'd like to see, how the eigenvalues for the infinite square-matrix are determined otherwise.

Gottfried, we discussed that already. There is no diagonalization uniqueness for infinite matrices. For example the infinite Carleman/Bell Matrix of \( sqrt{2}^x \) can be diagonalized with eigenvalues being powers of \( \ln(2) \) and with eigenvalues being powers of \( \ln(4) \).

What we however have is a unique diagonalization (up to swapping eigenvalues of course) of the finite approximating matrices. This method is always applicable (especially also to functions with no fixed points, like \( e^x \)) and clearly defined.

Quote:When I started my tetration-discussion based on diagonalization, I considered the sequences of sets of eigenvalues for truncated matrices with increasing size, where the parameter b for f:=b^x was in the "range of convergence", so approximations to the limit-case for the sets of eigenvalues made sense. See for instance sets of eigenvalues b=1.7^(1/1.7)

So the conjecture is that the eigenvalues of the truncated Carleman/Bell matrix of \( b^x \) converge to the set of powers of \( \ln(a) \) where \( a \) is the lower (the attracting) fixed point of \( b \)?

Quote:The approximation to a sequence of powers of a constant (here of log(1.7)) was the reason for my hypothesis, that this is in principle also true for the parameters b out of the "range of convergence"

Yes, as I demonstrated in "diagonal vs natural" it makes absolutly sense to consider \( E^t \) where \( E \) is the Carleman/Bell-Matrix of \( e^x \). Even if the Eigenvalues behave strangely (dont converge to powers of anything) you have for each truncated matrix a unique real \( t \)-th power (how powers or generally holomorphic functions are applied to matrices by diagonalization is explained here) and the values on the first row/column of this power converge with increasing matrix size.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/27/2008, 02:50 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/27/2008, 03:04 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by andydude - 04/28/2008, 05:42 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/28/2008, 06:33 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by Gottfried - 04/28/2008, 10:04 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/29/2008, 07:18 AM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by Gottfried - 04/29/2008, 10:46 AM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/29/2008, 11:15 AM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by Gottfried - 04/29/2008, 11:57 AM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/29/2008, 12:30 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by Gottfried - 04/29/2008, 01:31 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/29/2008, 02:16 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by Gottfried - 04/29/2008, 03:58 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by bo198214 - 04/29/2008, 06:27 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by Gottfried - 04/29/2008, 09:04 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by andydude - 05/07/2008, 06:42 PM
RE: diagonal vs regular - by Gottfried - 05/09/2008, 10:12 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  regular vs intuitive (formerly: natural) bo198214 7 26,858 06/24/2010, 11:37 AM
Last Post: Gottfried
  regular sexp: curve near h=-2 (h=-2 + eps*I) Gottfried 2 14,477 03/10/2010, 07:52 AM
Last Post: Gottfried
  regular sexp:different fixpoints Gottfried 6 30,327 08/11/2009, 06:47 PM
Last Post: jaydfox
  small base b=0.04 via regular iteration and repelling fixpoint Gottfried 0 6,674 06/26/2009, 09:59 AM
Last Post: Gottfried
  diagonal vs natural bo198214 2 10,812 05/01/2008, 01:37 PM
Last Post: bo198214



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)