07/21/2021, 05:29 PM
Let f(h(s)) = exp(f(s)) for 4 < Re(s) << Im(s).
Now I wonder where the singularities are for h(s).
since h(s) = inv.f(exp(f(s)))
I consider ( as a subquestion ) solutions v such that f ' (v) = 0.
This matters for the " quality " of h(s) approximating s+1 when Im(s) =/= 0.
Although this might not be neccessary for a proof , it would help for the creation of multiple proofs.
In particular my view on a proof is there are basicly 2 kind ; " internal and external " ;
for 4 < Re(s) << Im(s) :
tet(s) = f(s) + error1(s)
or
for 4 < Re(s) << Im(s) :
tet(s) = f(s + error2(s))
where error2(s) is related to the questions about h(s).
I believe error2(s) implies error1(s) or in other words , the harder ( internal) proof implies the easier (external ) .
***
arg(h(s)) is also very interesting and usefull to understand.
in particular for 4 < Re(s) << Im(s).
***
I think it also possible to prove (or decide ) the ( usual ) base change to be nowhere analytic since it strongly relates.
***
regards
tommy1729
Now I wonder where the singularities are for h(s).
since h(s) = inv.f(exp(f(s)))
I consider ( as a subquestion ) solutions v such that f ' (v) = 0.
This matters for the " quality " of h(s) approximating s+1 when Im(s) =/= 0.
Although this might not be neccessary for a proof , it would help for the creation of multiple proofs.
In particular my view on a proof is there are basicly 2 kind ; " internal and external " ;
for 4 < Re(s) << Im(s) :
tet(s) = f(s) + error1(s)
or
for 4 < Re(s) << Im(s) :
tet(s) = f(s + error2(s))
where error2(s) is related to the questions about h(s).
I believe error2(s) implies error1(s) or in other words , the harder ( internal) proof implies the easier (external ) .
***
arg(h(s)) is also very interesting and usefull to understand.
in particular for 4 < Re(s) << Im(s).
***
I think it also possible to prove (or decide ) the ( usual ) base change to be nowhere analytic since it strongly relates.
***
regards
tommy1729

