$e^x+x=0$ has countable infinite many solutions











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have shown that the following transcendental equation has only one real root. But I am looking for the argument to show that it has infinitely many numbers of roots in the complex plane. Moreover, these roots are countable.
$$e^x+x=0$$



And real root dominate all other roots in the sense of absolute value. Or real part of all complex roots is less than the real root.



Would be grateful for the hint and remarks.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    An non-constant entire function has at most countably many zeros, since if it had uncountably many then you could find a sequence tending to some point such that $f$ was zero on that sequence. By the identity theorem, that function therefore must be everywhere zero.
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:52










  • Try using Rouche's theorem on a small disk away from $0$.
    – anomaly
    Nov 18 at 15:58










  • See math.stackexchange.com/questions/632660/… or math.stackexchange.com/questions/657208/…
    – Martin R
    Nov 18 at 16:08












  • @Patrick Stevens: I just saw this question and immediately thought of what you said, then saw what you said (and that it was an hour ago). Oh well. Anyway, in case the OP wants more detail, a slight modification of the usual proof that compact sets in Euclidean space are Bolzano-Weierstrass compact works --- Suppose uncountably many zeros. Then there must be some closed square of side length $1$ containing uncountably many zeros (because $mathbb C$ can be covered by countably many such squares), and in this square there must be a closed square of side length $1/2$ containing uncountably...
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Nov 18 at 17:38

















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have shown that the following transcendental equation has only one real root. But I am looking for the argument to show that it has infinitely many numbers of roots in the complex plane. Moreover, these roots are countable.
$$e^x+x=0$$



And real root dominate all other roots in the sense of absolute value. Or real part of all complex roots is less than the real root.



Would be grateful for the hint and remarks.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 2




    An non-constant entire function has at most countably many zeros, since if it had uncountably many then you could find a sequence tending to some point such that $f$ was zero on that sequence. By the identity theorem, that function therefore must be everywhere zero.
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:52










  • Try using Rouche's theorem on a small disk away from $0$.
    – anomaly
    Nov 18 at 15:58










  • See math.stackexchange.com/questions/632660/… or math.stackexchange.com/questions/657208/…
    – Martin R
    Nov 18 at 16:08












  • @Patrick Stevens: I just saw this question and immediately thought of what you said, then saw what you said (and that it was an hour ago). Oh well. Anyway, in case the OP wants more detail, a slight modification of the usual proof that compact sets in Euclidean space are Bolzano-Weierstrass compact works --- Suppose uncountably many zeros. Then there must be some closed square of side length $1$ containing uncountably many zeros (because $mathbb C$ can be covered by countably many such squares), and in this square there must be a closed square of side length $1/2$ containing uncountably...
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Nov 18 at 17:38















up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I have shown that the following transcendental equation has only one real root. But I am looking for the argument to show that it has infinitely many numbers of roots in the complex plane. Moreover, these roots are countable.
$$e^x+x=0$$



And real root dominate all other roots in the sense of absolute value. Or real part of all complex roots is less than the real root.



Would be grateful for the hint and remarks.










share|cite|improve this question













I have shown that the following transcendental equation has only one real root. But I am looking for the argument to show that it has infinitely many numbers of roots in the complex plane. Moreover, these roots are countable.
$$e^x+x=0$$



And real root dominate all other roots in the sense of absolute value. Or real part of all complex roots is less than the real root.



Would be grateful for the hint and remarks.







real-analysis complex-analysis transcendental-equations






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 18 at 15:45









John

7510




7510








  • 2




    An non-constant entire function has at most countably many zeros, since if it had uncountably many then you could find a sequence tending to some point such that $f$ was zero on that sequence. By the identity theorem, that function therefore must be everywhere zero.
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:52










  • Try using Rouche's theorem on a small disk away from $0$.
    – anomaly
    Nov 18 at 15:58










  • See math.stackexchange.com/questions/632660/… or math.stackexchange.com/questions/657208/…
    – Martin R
    Nov 18 at 16:08












  • @Patrick Stevens: I just saw this question and immediately thought of what you said, then saw what you said (and that it was an hour ago). Oh well. Anyway, in case the OP wants more detail, a slight modification of the usual proof that compact sets in Euclidean space are Bolzano-Weierstrass compact works --- Suppose uncountably many zeros. Then there must be some closed square of side length $1$ containing uncountably many zeros (because $mathbb C$ can be covered by countably many such squares), and in this square there must be a closed square of side length $1/2$ containing uncountably...
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Nov 18 at 17:38
















  • 2




    An non-constant entire function has at most countably many zeros, since if it had uncountably many then you could find a sequence tending to some point such that $f$ was zero on that sequence. By the identity theorem, that function therefore must be everywhere zero.
    – Patrick Stevens
    Nov 18 at 15:52










  • Try using Rouche's theorem on a small disk away from $0$.
    – anomaly
    Nov 18 at 15:58










  • See math.stackexchange.com/questions/632660/… or math.stackexchange.com/questions/657208/…
    – Martin R
    Nov 18 at 16:08












  • @Patrick Stevens: I just saw this question and immediately thought of what you said, then saw what you said (and that it was an hour ago). Oh well. Anyway, in case the OP wants more detail, a slight modification of the usual proof that compact sets in Euclidean space are Bolzano-Weierstrass compact works --- Suppose uncountably many zeros. Then there must be some closed square of side length $1$ containing uncountably many zeros (because $mathbb C$ can be covered by countably many such squares), and in this square there must be a closed square of side length $1/2$ containing uncountably...
    – Dave L. Renfro
    Nov 18 at 17:38










2




2




An non-constant entire function has at most countably many zeros, since if it had uncountably many then you could find a sequence tending to some point such that $f$ was zero on that sequence. By the identity theorem, that function therefore must be everywhere zero.
– Patrick Stevens
Nov 18 at 15:52




An non-constant entire function has at most countably many zeros, since if it had uncountably many then you could find a sequence tending to some point such that $f$ was zero on that sequence. By the identity theorem, that function therefore must be everywhere zero.
– Patrick Stevens
Nov 18 at 15:52












Try using Rouche's theorem on a small disk away from $0$.
– anomaly
Nov 18 at 15:58




Try using Rouche's theorem on a small disk away from $0$.
– anomaly
Nov 18 at 15:58












See math.stackexchange.com/questions/632660/… or math.stackexchange.com/questions/657208/…
– Martin R
Nov 18 at 16:08






See math.stackexchange.com/questions/632660/… or math.stackexchange.com/questions/657208/…
– Martin R
Nov 18 at 16:08














@Patrick Stevens: I just saw this question and immediately thought of what you said, then saw what you said (and that it was an hour ago). Oh well. Anyway, in case the OP wants more detail, a slight modification of the usual proof that compact sets in Euclidean space are Bolzano-Weierstrass compact works --- Suppose uncountably many zeros. Then there must be some closed square of side length $1$ containing uncountably many zeros (because $mathbb C$ can be covered by countably many such squares), and in this square there must be a closed square of side length $1/2$ containing uncountably...
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 17:38






@Patrick Stevens: I just saw this question and immediately thought of what you said, then saw what you said (and that it was an hour ago). Oh well. Anyway, in case the OP wants more detail, a slight modification of the usual proof that compact sets in Euclidean space are Bolzano-Weierstrass compact works --- Suppose uncountably many zeros. Then there must be some closed square of side length $1$ containing uncountably many zeros (because $mathbb C$ can be covered by countably many such squares), and in this square there must be a closed square of side length $1/2$ containing uncountably...
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 17:38












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













$f(z)=e^z+z$ is an entire function, hence it attains every complex value (with at most one exception) countable times, by Picard's theorem. Actually there are no exceptional values, since
$$ f(z+2pi i) = f(z)+2pi i $$
(the presence of an exceptional value would imply the presence of infinite exceptional values) hence there are countable zeroes in the complex plane. The number of zeroes in the region $|z|leq 2pi M$ is given by
$$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{f'(z)}{f(z)},dz =frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{1-z}{e^z+z},dz$$
but such roots are probably best accounted by noticing that $f(a+bi)=0$ is equivalent to



$$ cos b = -a e^{-a}, qquad frac{sin b}{b} = -e^{-a} $$
hence they are given by the intersections of the following blue/purple curves:



$hspace{1cm}$enter image description here



The roots closest to the origin lie at $approx 1.53391 pm 4.37519i$.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    The solutions of $z+e^z=0$ come in complex conjugate pairs. Consider the roots with positive imaginary part. From $|z|=e^{Re(z)}$ one gets for $x=Re(z)gg 1$ that $y=Im(z)sim e^xgg x$. Considering the dominance of the imaginary part, transform the equation to
    $$
    -iz=ie^z=e^{z+ipi/2}implies z = Ln(-iz)+i2npi-ifracpi2
    $$

    for some $ninBbb N$. Inserting this into itself gives in the next step
    $$
    z= ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi+w.
    $$

    for some small $w$. Inserting back gives an equation for $w$,
    $$
    w = Lnleft(1-ifrac{ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+w}{(2n-tfrac12)pi}right)
    $$

    For $n$ large enough this is a contraction on ${w:|w|lefrac12}$, ensuring the existence of a solution. The same also holds for the unshifted iteration for $z$.



    Different values of $n$ give different fixed-point iterations resulting in different solutions of the original equation, ensuring a countably infinite set of solutions.





    Comparing the above first approximations with later iterates of the fixed-point iteration
    $$
    z_{k+1} = Ln(-iz_k)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi
    $$

    shows rapid (numerical) convergence and gives the table
    begin{array}{l|lll}
    n& z_0 & z_{15} & z_{15}-z_0 \ hline
    1 & (1.55019499396+4.71238898038j) & (1.53391331978+4.37518515309j) & (-0.0162816741736-0.337203827291j) \
    2 & (2.39749285434+10.9955742876j) & (2.40158510487+10.7762995161j) & (0.00409225052324-0.219274771449j) \
    3 & (2.84947797809+17.2787595947j) & (2.85358175541+17.1135355394j) & (0.00410377732121-0.165224055332j) \
    4 & (3.15963290639+23.5619449019j) & (3.1629527388+23.4277475038j) & (0.00331983241242-0.134197398168j) \
    5 & (3.39602168446+29.8451302091j) & (3.39869219676+29.7313107078j) & (0.00267051230882-0.113819501275j) \
    6 & (3.58707692122+36.1283155163j) & (3.58926252453+36.0290217034j) & (0.00218560331097-0.0992938128549j) \
    7 & (3.74741957129+42.4115008235j) & (3.74924254122+42.3231453612j) & (0.0018229699232-0.0883554622252j) \
    8 & (3.88556990977+48.6946861306j) & (3.88711644955+48.6148985649j) & (0.00154653977456-0.0797875657055j) \
    9 & (4.00693076678+54.9778714378j) & (4.00826205311+54.9049971233j) & (0.00133128633039-0.0728743144716j) \
    10 & (4.11514435142+61.261056745j) & (4.116304664+61.193891332j) & (0.00116031258267-0.0671654130445j) \
    11 & (4.21278282098+67.5442420522j) & (4.21380491472+67.48187952j) & (0.00102209373376-0.0623625321652j) \
    12 & (4.301730307+73.8274273594j) & (4.3026389193+73.769167656j) & (0.000908612303842-0.0582597033192j) \
    end{array}

    It also demonstrates a good fit of the initial approximation even for small $n$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003697%2fexx-0-has-countable-infinite-many-solutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      1
      down vote













      $f(z)=e^z+z$ is an entire function, hence it attains every complex value (with at most one exception) countable times, by Picard's theorem. Actually there are no exceptional values, since
      $$ f(z+2pi i) = f(z)+2pi i $$
      (the presence of an exceptional value would imply the presence of infinite exceptional values) hence there are countable zeroes in the complex plane. The number of zeroes in the region $|z|leq 2pi M$ is given by
      $$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{f'(z)}{f(z)},dz =frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{1-z}{e^z+z},dz$$
      but such roots are probably best accounted by noticing that $f(a+bi)=0$ is equivalent to



      $$ cos b = -a e^{-a}, qquad frac{sin b}{b} = -e^{-a} $$
      hence they are given by the intersections of the following blue/purple curves:



      $hspace{1cm}$enter image description here



      The roots closest to the origin lie at $approx 1.53391 pm 4.37519i$.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        $f(z)=e^z+z$ is an entire function, hence it attains every complex value (with at most one exception) countable times, by Picard's theorem. Actually there are no exceptional values, since
        $$ f(z+2pi i) = f(z)+2pi i $$
        (the presence of an exceptional value would imply the presence of infinite exceptional values) hence there are countable zeroes in the complex plane. The number of zeroes in the region $|z|leq 2pi M$ is given by
        $$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{f'(z)}{f(z)},dz =frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{1-z}{e^z+z},dz$$
        but such roots are probably best accounted by noticing that $f(a+bi)=0$ is equivalent to



        $$ cos b = -a e^{-a}, qquad frac{sin b}{b} = -e^{-a} $$
        hence they are given by the intersections of the following blue/purple curves:



        $hspace{1cm}$enter image description here



        The roots closest to the origin lie at $approx 1.53391 pm 4.37519i$.






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          $f(z)=e^z+z$ is an entire function, hence it attains every complex value (with at most one exception) countable times, by Picard's theorem. Actually there are no exceptional values, since
          $$ f(z+2pi i) = f(z)+2pi i $$
          (the presence of an exceptional value would imply the presence of infinite exceptional values) hence there are countable zeroes in the complex plane. The number of zeroes in the region $|z|leq 2pi M$ is given by
          $$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{f'(z)}{f(z)},dz =frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{1-z}{e^z+z},dz$$
          but such roots are probably best accounted by noticing that $f(a+bi)=0$ is equivalent to



          $$ cos b = -a e^{-a}, qquad frac{sin b}{b} = -e^{-a} $$
          hence they are given by the intersections of the following blue/purple curves:



          $hspace{1cm}$enter image description here



          The roots closest to the origin lie at $approx 1.53391 pm 4.37519i$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          $f(z)=e^z+z$ is an entire function, hence it attains every complex value (with at most one exception) countable times, by Picard's theorem. Actually there are no exceptional values, since
          $$ f(z+2pi i) = f(z)+2pi i $$
          (the presence of an exceptional value would imply the presence of infinite exceptional values) hence there are countable zeroes in the complex plane. The number of zeroes in the region $|z|leq 2pi M$ is given by
          $$ frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{f'(z)}{f(z)},dz =frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{|z|=2pi M}frac{1-z}{e^z+z},dz$$
          but such roots are probably best accounted by noticing that $f(a+bi)=0$ is equivalent to



          $$ cos b = -a e^{-a}, qquad frac{sin b}{b} = -e^{-a} $$
          hence they are given by the intersections of the following blue/purple curves:



          $hspace{1cm}$enter image description here



          The roots closest to the origin lie at $approx 1.53391 pm 4.37519i$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 18 at 17:24









          Jack D'Aurizio

          283k33275653




          283k33275653






















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              The solutions of $z+e^z=0$ come in complex conjugate pairs. Consider the roots with positive imaginary part. From $|z|=e^{Re(z)}$ one gets for $x=Re(z)gg 1$ that $y=Im(z)sim e^xgg x$. Considering the dominance of the imaginary part, transform the equation to
              $$
              -iz=ie^z=e^{z+ipi/2}implies z = Ln(-iz)+i2npi-ifracpi2
              $$

              for some $ninBbb N$. Inserting this into itself gives in the next step
              $$
              z= ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi+w.
              $$

              for some small $w$. Inserting back gives an equation for $w$,
              $$
              w = Lnleft(1-ifrac{ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+w}{(2n-tfrac12)pi}right)
              $$

              For $n$ large enough this is a contraction on ${w:|w|lefrac12}$, ensuring the existence of a solution. The same also holds for the unshifted iteration for $z$.



              Different values of $n$ give different fixed-point iterations resulting in different solutions of the original equation, ensuring a countably infinite set of solutions.





              Comparing the above first approximations with later iterates of the fixed-point iteration
              $$
              z_{k+1} = Ln(-iz_k)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi
              $$

              shows rapid (numerical) convergence and gives the table
              begin{array}{l|lll}
              n& z_0 & z_{15} & z_{15}-z_0 \ hline
              1 & (1.55019499396+4.71238898038j) & (1.53391331978+4.37518515309j) & (-0.0162816741736-0.337203827291j) \
              2 & (2.39749285434+10.9955742876j) & (2.40158510487+10.7762995161j) & (0.00409225052324-0.219274771449j) \
              3 & (2.84947797809+17.2787595947j) & (2.85358175541+17.1135355394j) & (0.00410377732121-0.165224055332j) \
              4 & (3.15963290639+23.5619449019j) & (3.1629527388+23.4277475038j) & (0.00331983241242-0.134197398168j) \
              5 & (3.39602168446+29.8451302091j) & (3.39869219676+29.7313107078j) & (0.00267051230882-0.113819501275j) \
              6 & (3.58707692122+36.1283155163j) & (3.58926252453+36.0290217034j) & (0.00218560331097-0.0992938128549j) \
              7 & (3.74741957129+42.4115008235j) & (3.74924254122+42.3231453612j) & (0.0018229699232-0.0883554622252j) \
              8 & (3.88556990977+48.6946861306j) & (3.88711644955+48.6148985649j) & (0.00154653977456-0.0797875657055j) \
              9 & (4.00693076678+54.9778714378j) & (4.00826205311+54.9049971233j) & (0.00133128633039-0.0728743144716j) \
              10 & (4.11514435142+61.261056745j) & (4.116304664+61.193891332j) & (0.00116031258267-0.0671654130445j) \
              11 & (4.21278282098+67.5442420522j) & (4.21380491472+67.48187952j) & (0.00102209373376-0.0623625321652j) \
              12 & (4.301730307+73.8274273594j) & (4.3026389193+73.769167656j) & (0.000908612303842-0.0582597033192j) \
              end{array}

              It also demonstrates a good fit of the initial approximation even for small $n$.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                The solutions of $z+e^z=0$ come in complex conjugate pairs. Consider the roots with positive imaginary part. From $|z|=e^{Re(z)}$ one gets for $x=Re(z)gg 1$ that $y=Im(z)sim e^xgg x$. Considering the dominance of the imaginary part, transform the equation to
                $$
                -iz=ie^z=e^{z+ipi/2}implies z = Ln(-iz)+i2npi-ifracpi2
                $$

                for some $ninBbb N$. Inserting this into itself gives in the next step
                $$
                z= ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi+w.
                $$

                for some small $w$. Inserting back gives an equation for $w$,
                $$
                w = Lnleft(1-ifrac{ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+w}{(2n-tfrac12)pi}right)
                $$

                For $n$ large enough this is a contraction on ${w:|w|lefrac12}$, ensuring the existence of a solution. The same also holds for the unshifted iteration for $z$.



                Different values of $n$ give different fixed-point iterations resulting in different solutions of the original equation, ensuring a countably infinite set of solutions.





                Comparing the above first approximations with later iterates of the fixed-point iteration
                $$
                z_{k+1} = Ln(-iz_k)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi
                $$

                shows rapid (numerical) convergence and gives the table
                begin{array}{l|lll}
                n& z_0 & z_{15} & z_{15}-z_0 \ hline
                1 & (1.55019499396+4.71238898038j) & (1.53391331978+4.37518515309j) & (-0.0162816741736-0.337203827291j) \
                2 & (2.39749285434+10.9955742876j) & (2.40158510487+10.7762995161j) & (0.00409225052324-0.219274771449j) \
                3 & (2.84947797809+17.2787595947j) & (2.85358175541+17.1135355394j) & (0.00410377732121-0.165224055332j) \
                4 & (3.15963290639+23.5619449019j) & (3.1629527388+23.4277475038j) & (0.00331983241242-0.134197398168j) \
                5 & (3.39602168446+29.8451302091j) & (3.39869219676+29.7313107078j) & (0.00267051230882-0.113819501275j) \
                6 & (3.58707692122+36.1283155163j) & (3.58926252453+36.0290217034j) & (0.00218560331097-0.0992938128549j) \
                7 & (3.74741957129+42.4115008235j) & (3.74924254122+42.3231453612j) & (0.0018229699232-0.0883554622252j) \
                8 & (3.88556990977+48.6946861306j) & (3.88711644955+48.6148985649j) & (0.00154653977456-0.0797875657055j) \
                9 & (4.00693076678+54.9778714378j) & (4.00826205311+54.9049971233j) & (0.00133128633039-0.0728743144716j) \
                10 & (4.11514435142+61.261056745j) & (4.116304664+61.193891332j) & (0.00116031258267-0.0671654130445j) \
                11 & (4.21278282098+67.5442420522j) & (4.21380491472+67.48187952j) & (0.00102209373376-0.0623625321652j) \
                12 & (4.301730307+73.8274273594j) & (4.3026389193+73.769167656j) & (0.000908612303842-0.0582597033192j) \
                end{array}

                It also demonstrates a good fit of the initial approximation even for small $n$.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  The solutions of $z+e^z=0$ come in complex conjugate pairs. Consider the roots with positive imaginary part. From $|z|=e^{Re(z)}$ one gets for $x=Re(z)gg 1$ that $y=Im(z)sim e^xgg x$. Considering the dominance of the imaginary part, transform the equation to
                  $$
                  -iz=ie^z=e^{z+ipi/2}implies z = Ln(-iz)+i2npi-ifracpi2
                  $$

                  for some $ninBbb N$. Inserting this into itself gives in the next step
                  $$
                  z= ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi+w.
                  $$

                  for some small $w$. Inserting back gives an equation for $w$,
                  $$
                  w = Lnleft(1-ifrac{ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+w}{(2n-tfrac12)pi}right)
                  $$

                  For $n$ large enough this is a contraction on ${w:|w|lefrac12}$, ensuring the existence of a solution. The same also holds for the unshifted iteration for $z$.



                  Different values of $n$ give different fixed-point iterations resulting in different solutions of the original equation, ensuring a countably infinite set of solutions.





                  Comparing the above first approximations with later iterates of the fixed-point iteration
                  $$
                  z_{k+1} = Ln(-iz_k)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi
                  $$

                  shows rapid (numerical) convergence and gives the table
                  begin{array}{l|lll}
                  n& z_0 & z_{15} & z_{15}-z_0 \ hline
                  1 & (1.55019499396+4.71238898038j) & (1.53391331978+4.37518515309j) & (-0.0162816741736-0.337203827291j) \
                  2 & (2.39749285434+10.9955742876j) & (2.40158510487+10.7762995161j) & (0.00409225052324-0.219274771449j) \
                  3 & (2.84947797809+17.2787595947j) & (2.85358175541+17.1135355394j) & (0.00410377732121-0.165224055332j) \
                  4 & (3.15963290639+23.5619449019j) & (3.1629527388+23.4277475038j) & (0.00331983241242-0.134197398168j) \
                  5 & (3.39602168446+29.8451302091j) & (3.39869219676+29.7313107078j) & (0.00267051230882-0.113819501275j) \
                  6 & (3.58707692122+36.1283155163j) & (3.58926252453+36.0290217034j) & (0.00218560331097-0.0992938128549j) \
                  7 & (3.74741957129+42.4115008235j) & (3.74924254122+42.3231453612j) & (0.0018229699232-0.0883554622252j) \
                  8 & (3.88556990977+48.6946861306j) & (3.88711644955+48.6148985649j) & (0.00154653977456-0.0797875657055j) \
                  9 & (4.00693076678+54.9778714378j) & (4.00826205311+54.9049971233j) & (0.00133128633039-0.0728743144716j) \
                  10 & (4.11514435142+61.261056745j) & (4.116304664+61.193891332j) & (0.00116031258267-0.0671654130445j) \
                  11 & (4.21278282098+67.5442420522j) & (4.21380491472+67.48187952j) & (0.00102209373376-0.0623625321652j) \
                  12 & (4.301730307+73.8274273594j) & (4.3026389193+73.769167656j) & (0.000908612303842-0.0582597033192j) \
                  end{array}

                  It also demonstrates a good fit of the initial approximation even for small $n$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  The solutions of $z+e^z=0$ come in complex conjugate pairs. Consider the roots with positive imaginary part. From $|z|=e^{Re(z)}$ one gets for $x=Re(z)gg 1$ that $y=Im(z)sim e^xgg x$. Considering the dominance of the imaginary part, transform the equation to
                  $$
                  -iz=ie^z=e^{z+ipi/2}implies z = Ln(-iz)+i2npi-ifracpi2
                  $$

                  for some $ninBbb N$. Inserting this into itself gives in the next step
                  $$
                  z= ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi+w.
                  $$

                  for some small $w$. Inserting back gives an equation for $w$,
                  $$
                  w = Lnleft(1-ifrac{ln((2n-tfrac12)pi)+w}{(2n-tfrac12)pi}right)
                  $$

                  For $n$ large enough this is a contraction on ${w:|w|lefrac12}$, ensuring the existence of a solution. The same also holds for the unshifted iteration for $z$.



                  Different values of $n$ give different fixed-point iterations resulting in different solutions of the original equation, ensuring a countably infinite set of solutions.





                  Comparing the above first approximations with later iterates of the fixed-point iteration
                  $$
                  z_{k+1} = Ln(-iz_k)+i(2n-tfrac12)pi
                  $$

                  shows rapid (numerical) convergence and gives the table
                  begin{array}{l|lll}
                  n& z_0 & z_{15} & z_{15}-z_0 \ hline
                  1 & (1.55019499396+4.71238898038j) & (1.53391331978+4.37518515309j) & (-0.0162816741736-0.337203827291j) \
                  2 & (2.39749285434+10.9955742876j) & (2.40158510487+10.7762995161j) & (0.00409225052324-0.219274771449j) \
                  3 & (2.84947797809+17.2787595947j) & (2.85358175541+17.1135355394j) & (0.00410377732121-0.165224055332j) \
                  4 & (3.15963290639+23.5619449019j) & (3.1629527388+23.4277475038j) & (0.00331983241242-0.134197398168j) \
                  5 & (3.39602168446+29.8451302091j) & (3.39869219676+29.7313107078j) & (0.00267051230882-0.113819501275j) \
                  6 & (3.58707692122+36.1283155163j) & (3.58926252453+36.0290217034j) & (0.00218560331097-0.0992938128549j) \
                  7 & (3.74741957129+42.4115008235j) & (3.74924254122+42.3231453612j) & (0.0018229699232-0.0883554622252j) \
                  8 & (3.88556990977+48.6946861306j) & (3.88711644955+48.6148985649j) & (0.00154653977456-0.0797875657055j) \
                  9 & (4.00693076678+54.9778714378j) & (4.00826205311+54.9049971233j) & (0.00133128633039-0.0728743144716j) \
                  10 & (4.11514435142+61.261056745j) & (4.116304664+61.193891332j) & (0.00116031258267-0.0671654130445j) \
                  11 & (4.21278282098+67.5442420522j) & (4.21380491472+67.48187952j) & (0.00102209373376-0.0623625321652j) \
                  12 & (4.301730307+73.8274273594j) & (4.3026389193+73.769167656j) & (0.000908612303842-0.0582597033192j) \
                  end{array}

                  It also demonstrates a good fit of the initial approximation even for small $n$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 21 at 17:11









                  LutzL

                  54.3k41953




                  54.3k41953






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003697%2fexx-0-has-countable-infinite-many-solutions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

                      Aardman Animations

                      Are they similar matrix