01/07/2012, 06:28 PM
that sounds good.
thank you for your intrest too.
but i am somewhat confused by the combination of your posts on this forum , in particular :
1 : you often claim radius of convergeance for tommysexp , tommyslog and similar expressions.
yet
2 : you compare my functions to basechange ...
3 : say basechange is not analytic ...
4 : it ( basechange ) is not proven to not be analytic
5 : even if basechange is not analytic , how about 1 : radius of convergeance ?
6 : if two functions are similar in property or close in value that does not imply they must both be analytic or non-analytic.
7 : as i often say , i compute it slightly different which might effect the millionth digit or the analytic properties , you need to understand that if you use a variant your properties are for that variant also.
8 : there are not enough singularities close enough to the real line to make my function exp^[1/2](x) NOT analytic in x near the real line x.
( i use analytic continuation to go to the complex plane )
9 : when you talk about non-analytic do you perhaps mean the other parameter z instead of x in exp^[z](x) ??
the combination of those 9 has kept me confused for quite a while.
i brought up those questions before ( and bo also replied that the basechange has not proven to be nonanalytic near the real line)
10 : it seems you avoid these remarks abit or maybe it was not clear to you what i meant.
otherwise great posts though.
regards
tommy1729
thank you for your intrest too.
but i am somewhat confused by the combination of your posts on this forum , in particular :
1 : you often claim radius of convergeance for tommysexp , tommyslog and similar expressions.
yet
2 : you compare my functions to basechange ...
3 : say basechange is not analytic ...
4 : it ( basechange ) is not proven to not be analytic
5 : even if basechange is not analytic , how about 1 : radius of convergeance ?
6 : if two functions are similar in property or close in value that does not imply they must both be analytic or non-analytic.
7 : as i often say , i compute it slightly different which might effect the millionth digit or the analytic properties , you need to understand that if you use a variant your properties are for that variant also.
8 : there are not enough singularities close enough to the real line to make my function exp^[1/2](x) NOT analytic in x near the real line x.
( i use analytic continuation to go to the complex plane )
9 : when you talk about non-analytic do you perhaps mean the other parameter z instead of x in exp^[z](x) ??
the combination of those 9 has kept me confused for quite a while.
i brought up those questions before ( and bo also replied that the basechange has not proven to be nonanalytic near the real line)
10 : it seems you avoid these remarks abit or maybe it was not clear to you what i meant.
otherwise great posts though.
regards
tommy1729