7

Does there exist a function $f: (a,b) \to \mathbb R$ ($a,b$ are allowed to be infinity) such that $\log \cdots \log (f)$ is strictly convex on its whole domain of definition for an arbitrary number (though finitely many) of $\log$'s?

If such function exists, it must be very very convex ("more convex" than any $\exp \dots \exp (x) $, which will become concave after a finitely many $\log$'s applied on)

The form of $f$ doesn't have to be concrete. It can be infinite series or one can even show its existence or nonexistence.

No One
  • 8,465
  • Does this make sense, actually? After some number of $\log$s, wouldn't you get something to which you cannot apply $\log$? – Fimpellizzeri Oct 20 '20 at 17:14
  • @Fimpellizieri that is why I say "on its domain". Note that loglog...logloglog(x) is always defined for large x. – No One Oct 20 '20 at 17:16
  • Try with something stronger, like $f(x)=\Gamma(x)$ – Raffaele Oct 20 '20 at 20:17
  • @Raffaele Unfortunately the software plotting gives me a negative answer. $ \log \log(\Gamma(x))$ is concave somewhere... – No One Oct 20 '20 at 21:20
  • 1
    that the Gamma function does not work is obvious from Stirling's approximation – LinAlg Oct 20 '20 at 23:32
  • 2
    I was thinking about $f(x) = \exp(f(x-1))$ but cannot create a complete example – LinAlg Oct 21 '20 at 01:31
  • @LinAlg I think this is a great idea. First show that a function satisfying a certain function equation has the given property and then show that such function equation has a solution... – No One Oct 21 '20 at 01:38
  • @NoOne Raffaele's example, $f(x) = \Gamma(x)$ on $(0, \infty)$. You can not take $\log$ two times since $\log \Gamma(x) < 0$ for some $x$ in $(0, \infty)$, right? In your question, do you mean: let $N$ be the greatest positive integer such that after $N$ log, the resulting function is less than or equal to zero for some $x$ in its domain? – River Li Oct 21 '20 at 02:08
  • @RiverLi I said "on its domain".... For any N, as long as the domain $I_N$ of log...log f(x) is such that log...log f(x) is convex, that is good. I don't care about the places where log...log f(x) is undefined. – No One Oct 21 '20 at 02:21
  • Pick some $x$ known to be in the domain of $g_n(x) = \mathsf{log}^{\circ n} f(x)$ (the $n$-fold composition), $g_n(x)$ should be strictly convex. But, it may be that $x$ is not in the domain of $g_{n + 1}$. Perhaps something like $^{[x]}x$? i.e. if $[x] = n$ is the integer part of x, $^nx$ is the $n$ tetration of $x$. – RJTK Oct 21 '20 at 02:24
  • @NoOne OK. Again Raffaele's example, how about $f(x) = \Gamma(x)$ on $(1,2)$, $\log \Gamma(x) < 0$ for all $x$ in $(1,2)$? – River Li Oct 21 '20 at 02:31
  • Presumably you also want $f$ itself to be strictly convex (else take $f \equiv 0$). – Unit Oct 21 '20 at 03:28
  • @Unit well yes. A function with empty domain (log 0) is convex by pure logic? – No One Oct 21 '20 at 03:38
  • I meant a tower of Gamma, actually... – Raffaele Oct 21 '20 at 06:45

4 Answers4

6

After realizing the flaw in my previous, affirmative, answer: No such function exists.

If $f$ has a nonempty domain at every point, then it grows arbitrarily large, but since it is continuous, after sufficiently many iterations of log its range will always be $(-\infty,\infty)$. WLOG, take $f$ to be such a function (if any valid $f$ exists, all of its logarithms are valid too). It is strictly monotonically increasing (as it is convex and not bounded below), so we let $c_0<c_1<c_2<\ldots$ be the unique points at which $f$ attains the values $0,1,e,e^e,e^{e^e},\ldots$.

Now consider $g=\log(f)$. We have $g(c_1)=0, g(c_2)=1$, and that $g$ is convex and monotonically increasing. We also have $\lim_{x\to c_0}g(x)=-\infty$. But then consider the line from $(x,g(x))$ to $(c_2,1)$; as $x$ approaches $c_0$ from the positive direction, this line will drop below the point $(c_1,0)$, violating convexity.

It is possible for $f$ and all logs applied to it to be convex on all positive values, as outlined in my other answer, but not over its whole domain.

0

Define the function $g_n(x) = \text{exp}^{\circ n}(x - n)$ where by $\text{exp}^{\circ n}$ I mean the $n$-fold composition of the function. So, $g_1(x) = \text{exp}(x - 1)$, $g_2(x) = \text{exp}(\text{exp}(x - 2))$ etc.

Then I think $f(x) = g_{[x]}(x)$ satisfies the desired property, where $[x]$ is the ceiling of $x$: suppose that $x$ is such that $[x] = n$, then $\text{log}^{\circ n} f(x) = x - n$ is convex. Applying the $\text{log}$ again is not defined, so such an $x$ is only in the domain of $\text{log}^{\circ n}$ but not $\text{log}^{\circ (n + 1)}$.

EDIT: As mentioned in the comment, this has discontinuities at each integer. A paper that develops the idea of $\text{exp}^{\circ x}$ can be found here.

LinAlg
  • 20,093
RJTK
  • 447
  • 2
    Actually by "domain" I mean the whole domain of definition. I think your $f(x)$ is always convex "somewhere" (on some subinterval of its domain) on the domain of $\text{log}^{\circ n} f(x)$. But is it convex everywhere on its domain? – No One Oct 21 '20 at 02:45
  • Yes actually there's a problem: there are discontinuities at each integer. Possibly this idea can be extended in some way to $\text{exp}^{\circ x}(x)$? Alternatively, I could take e.g. $f(x) = g_n(x)$ and restrict the domain so that $f(x) = \infty$ whenever $[x] \ne n$, although you do say real function, so I suppose something like this, or just $f(x) = \infty$ is not allowed. – RJTK Oct 21 '20 at 02:53
  • @RJTK I get a University of Waterloo wall at your link. Do you have a freely available version? – preferred_anon Oct 21 '20 at 14:17
  • Oops -- this appears to be a freely available copy. – RJTK Oct 21 '20 at 17:13
0

Edit: This function is only convex on its positive values, as pointed out in the comments. No such function exists - see my other answer.

A solution obtained via some modifications to RJTK's answer:

We set up our function so that it passes through $(0,0), (1/2,1), (3/4,e), (7/8,e^e),(15/16,e^{e^e}),$ and so on. Thus, after $n$ applications of log it will have a domain of $(1-2^{-n},1)$.

To interpolate between these points, we let $a_n=1-2^{-n}$ and define the function from $a_n$ to $a_{n+1}$ to be $\exp(\exp(\ldots\exp(g(\frac{x-a_n}{a_{n+1}-a_n})))$, where there are $n$ applications of the exponential and $g$ is a strictly convex increasing function on $[0,1]$ passing through $(0,0)$ and $(1,1)$.

Since $\log(f(x)) = f(2x-1)$ for all $x$ such that this is defined, we need only check convexity of $f$ and the convexity of each application of log will follow.

Clearly, $f$ is continuous and strictly convex on $(a_n,a_{n+1})$. To see that it is convex at each $a_n$, we want to show that the slope at the start of the interval $(a_n,a_{n+1})$ exceeds that at the end of the interval $(a_{n-1},a_n)$. But $f$ has the property that $f'(x)=2f(x)\cdot f'(2x-1)$. So, by induction and the fact that $f$ is monotonically increasing, it suffices to check convexity at $x=\frac12$.

Here is where $g$ must be chosen; we need that $g'(1) \le 2g'(0)$, by the previous identity. Taking $g(x)=\frac{3x+x^2}{4}$ suffices for this.

(Originally, I tried defining $f(x)$ piecewise between integers, but this forced $g'(1) \le g'(0)$, i.e., that $g$ not be strictly convex. Allowing for the slope to double at each successive piece gets around this, albeit in a somewhat hacky way.)

  • 1
    On $(0, 1/2)$ the function is defined by $f(x) = e(3x+x^2)/4$. If you take the logarithm once, it is concave on (0.43, 0.5). – LinAlg Oct 21 '20 at 14:06
  • Ah, you’re right. I believe this is a typo, and the factor of e in the innermost parenthetical should be removed; I think this fixes things. – RavenclawPrefect Oct 21 '20 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\log f$ is actually concave on (0,0.5), both before and after removing $e$ – LinAlg Oct 21 '20 at 14:25
  • So it is, I neglected the negative values attained by $f$. Oops. Edited this answer and posted a proof of impossibility. – RavenclawPrefect Oct 21 '20 at 15:38
0

An interesting example is one defined by Hellmuth Kneser, as an analytic solution $E$ to Abel's equation which I see has been mentionned several times already:

$\forall x>c,E(x+1)=\exp(E(x))$,

where $c$ is a real constant. The function is also strictly increasing and all of its derivatives are positive on (distinct) intervals $(b,+\infty)$, $b\geq c$. This is also the case for $\log \circ \cdot \cdot \cdot \log \circ E$ because of the functional equation above.

nombre
  • 5,295
  • 17
  • 28
  • Why does it have an analytic solution? Or even a solution? It is also not clear why it is convex on its WHOLE domain – No One Oct 21 '20 at 15:23
  • The existence of such solution is not trivial, it is the main result of Kneser's article (https://www.degruyter.com/view/book/9783110894516/10.1515/9783110894516.415.xml). The function is defined on a interval $(c,+\infty)$. Restricting to some $(c',+\infty)$ you can obtain that $E''>0$. – nombre Oct 21 '20 at 15:46
  • @NoOne Each function $\log \circ \cdot \cdot \cdot \circ \log \circ E$ won't be convex on the whole set of real numbers where it could possibly be defined, as per RavenclawPrefect's answer. – nombre Oct 21 '20 at 18:24