Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorjcmckeown
   • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: jcmckeown
   Format: MarkdownItexI only wanted to say, on the one hand, bravo on the sine page in your private nlab web; on the other hand, the main inspiration for the goofy inequality was that I wanted a similar presentation to that of the natural exponential function which, as everyone knows who knows it, satisfies * $ 1 + x \leq e^x $ * $ e^{2x} = (e^x)^2 $ and furthermore that this pins it down exactly. Cheers!

   I only wanted to say, on the one hand, bravo on the sine page in your private nlab web; on the other hand, the main inspiration for the goofy inequality was that I wanted a similar presentation to that of the natural exponential function which, as everyone knows who knows it, satisfies

   • $1 + x \leq e^x$
   • $e^{2x} = (e^x)^2$

   and furthermore that this pins it down exactly.

   Cheers!

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI see; thanks for the explanation! And sorry for the rudeness ("goofy"); I'll get rid of it. So this characterization of the sine is due to you? Very interesting; I'd never seen that before. You must have devised your own proof; I'd be interested in hearing it!

   I see; thanks for the explanation! And sorry for the rudeness (“goofy”); I’ll get rid of it.

   So this characterization of the sine is due to you? Very interesting; I’d never seen that before. You must have devised your own proof; I’d be interested in hearing it!

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorjcmckeown
   • CommentTimeMar 19th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: jcmckeown
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't mind "goofy".

   I don’t mind “goofy”.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorjcmckeown
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: jcmckeown
   Format: MarkdownItexGoodness, I just lost a lot of editing, and I've got the last assignment marking of the year still to do... The Tricky Part of the argument is to consider that the function we want is of the form $g(x) = x h(x)$, and then construct an equivalent functional equation for $h$: $$ h(x) = h(x/3) - \frac{4}{27} x^2 h(x/3)^3 $$ iff $g (x) = 3 g(x/3) - 4 g(x/3)^3 $. In terms of the (nonlinear nonlocal) transformation $T$ $$ T : f \mapsto x \mapsto f(x/3) - \frac{4}{27} x^2 f(x/3)^3 $$ one calculates $$ (T F - T f)(x) = (F - f)(x/3) \left( 1 - \frac{4}{27} x^2 (F F + f F + f f) (x/3) \right) $$ which shows 1. $T$ preserves the ordering of (small) $F$ and $f$, on small intervals $[-\delta,\delta]$, and 1. in the same circumstances also that the supremum distance between $T F$ and $T f$ on $[-\delta,\delta]$ is at most the supremum distance between $F$ and $f$ on $[-\delta/3,\delta/3]$. Now consider the particular bounds $F_0 = 1$ and $f_0 (x) = 1-x^2$. An otherwise uninteresting calculation gives $$ T F_0 (x) = 1 - \frac{4}{27} x^2 $$ $$ T f_0 (x) = 1 - \frac{ 16 }{ 27 } x^2 + x^4 P(x) $$ for an explicit polynomial $P$; in brief, $$ f_0 \le T f_0 \le T F_0 \le F_0 $$ on some interval $[-r,r]$, which need not be bigger than $[-1,1]$. This is the start of an induction argument that $$ f_0 \le T^n f_0 \le T^{n+1} f_0 \le T^{n+1} F_0 \le T^n F_0 \le F_0 $$ while at the same time (induction via item 2) we have the bounds $$ | T^n F_0 (x) - T^n f_0 (x) | \leq \frac{x^2}{9^n} .$$ It follows that $T$ has a unique fixedpoint within the specified bounds, over the interval $[-r,r]$, and hence a unique fixedpoint over the whole real line. So that's existence and uniqueness. Since, obviously, the functional equation and the bounds are concocted to hold for sine, we might be happy with that.

   Goodness, I just lost a lot of editing, and I’ve got the last assignment marking of the year still to do…

   The Tricky Part of the argument is to consider that the function we want is of the form $g(x) = x h(x)$, and then construct an equivalent functional equation for $h$:

   $$h(x) = h(x/3) - \frac{4}{27} x^2 h(x/3)^3$$

   iff $g (x) = 3 g(x/3) - 4 g(x/3)^3$.

   In terms of the (nonlinear nonlocal) transformation $T$

   $$T : f \mapsto x \mapsto f(x/3) - \frac{4}{27} x^2 f(x/3)^3$$

   one calculates

   $$(T F - T f)(x) = (F - f)(x/3) \left( 1 - \frac{4}{27} x^2 (F F + f F + f f) (x/3) \right)$$

   which shows

   1. $T$ preserves the ordering of (small) $F$ and $f$, on small intervals $[-\delta,\delta]$, and
   2. in the same circumstances also that the supremum distance between $T F$ and $T f$ on $[-\delta,\delta]$ is at most the supremum distance between $F$ and $f$ on $[-\delta/3,\delta/3]$.

   Now consider the particular bounds $F_0 = 1$ and $f_0 (x) = 1-x^2$. An otherwise uninteresting calculation gives

   $$T F_0 (x) = 1 - \frac{4}{27} x^2$$ $$T f_0 (x) = 1 - \frac{ 16 }{ 27 } x^2 + x^4 P(x)$$

   for an explicit polynomial $P$; in brief,

   $$f_0 \le T f_0 \le T F_0 \le F_0$$

   on some interval $[-r,r]$, which need not be bigger than $[-1,1]$. This is the start of an induction argument that

   $$f_0 \le T^n f_0 \le T^{n+1} f_0 \le T^{n+1} F_0 \le T^n F_0 \le F_0$$

   while at the same time (induction via item 2) we have the bounds

   $$| T^n F_0 (x) - T^n f_0 (x) | \leq \frac{x^2}{9^n} .$$

   It follows that $T$ has a unique fixedpoint within the specified bounds, over the interval $[-r,r]$, and hence a unique fixedpoint over the whole real line. So that’s existence and uniqueness. Since, obviously, the functional equation and the bounds are concocted to hold for sine, we might be happy with that.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks very much, Jesse -- I think I get the overall idea; I can run over this with a fine-toothed comb maybe a little later. (That 4/27 looks weirdly suggestive...) But where on earth does all this come from? Did you find this characterization in a book somewhere, or what? It looks just a bit off the beaten track, shall we say, at least to my eyes.

   Thanks very much, Jesse – I think I get the overall idea; I can run over this with a fine-toothed comb maybe a little later. (That 4/27 looks weirdly suggestive…)

   But where on earth does all this come from? Did you find this characterization in a book somewhere, or what? It looks just a bit off the beaten track, shall we say, at least to my eyes.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorjcmckeown
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: jcmckeown
   Format: MarkdownItexI wanted to impress on some calculus students just how much easier everything is with the right tools; so, here is a complete characterization of a familiar-ish thing, but what on earth can you do with it? But after developing some calculus, e.g. Taylor series, one can [start crunching digits](http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/362736.362756) of things like $sin(1)$, or prove that it's irrational, and so forth.

   I wanted to impress on some calculus students just how much easier everything is with the right tools; so, here is a complete characterization of a familiar-ish thing, but what on earth can you do with it? But after developing some calculus, e.g. Taylor series, one can start crunching digits of things like $sin(1)$, or prove that it’s irrational, and so forth.