12

To prove that $\exp(z)$ has at least one fixed point, consider the function $$ f(z) = \exp(z) - z, $$ which satisfies $f(z+2\pi i)=f(z)-2\pi i$. By Picard's little theorem, we conclude that $f$ is surjective. Therefore, there exists some $\zeta$ such that $f(\zeta) = 0$, i.e., $\exp(\zeta) = \zeta$.

Now, to prove the existence of 2-periodic points, we must show that the function $\exp(\exp(z)) - z$ has at least one zero that is not a zero of $f(z)$. To approach this, I considered the function $$ g(z) = \frac{e^{e^z}-z}{e^z-z}. $$ Note that at every fixed point $\zeta$ of $\exp(z)$, $g(\zeta) = \zeta + 1$, it suffices to show that $g$ has at least one zero. But I'm currently stuck on.

While I know that computational methods can be employed to find 2-periodic points, I wonder if there is a more concise theoretical approach.

  • May help you https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2894328/entire-function-problem-translation?noredirect=1 – Riemann Apr 16 '25 at 02:11
  • @Riemann: In that Q&A it is proven that $f \circ f$ always has fixed points, but not that these have (primitive) period $2$. In other words, the possibility that all fixed points of $f \circ f$ are actually fixed points of $f$ is not excluded. So that is certainly related and may help, but it does not fully answer this question. – Martin R Apr 23 '25 at 14:55
  • @Martin I think that an argument using Jensen can work since for large modulus $R$ we have $\log |e^{e^z}-z|$ about $e^{R\cos \theta}$ when the $\cos \theta$ is positive and about $R$ otherwise except on a very small arc of size $<< \log R/R$ so if we can inferior bound that part by $-e^{-R}\log R/R$ we have that integral is $>> e^R/\sqrt R$ so lots of zeroes with modulus at most $R$, many more than the $cR$ of $e^z-z$ – Conrad May 11 '25 at 00:17
  • Meant $\log R$ otherwise - here the $-z$ part is crucial – Conrad May 11 '25 at 00:23
  • 2
    You could try to prove the existence of a fixed point for $\exp\circ\exp$ with imaginary part $y\in(\pi,2\pi)$ so that $\sin(y)<0<y$, so it cannot be a fixed point for $\exp$. – Christophe Boilley May 11 '25 at 17:21
  • 1
    @Mason: the exponential function isn't multivalued. – mjqxxxx May 13 '25 at 17:19
  • 1
    There is a paper by Misiurewicz which states that if $A_n$ is the set of period point of exponential function of period $n$ then the sum of these sets is dense in $C$. The proof is quite elementary, see On iterates of e z , Ergodic Theory Dynamical Systems 1 (1981) – Salcio May 17 '25 at 12:19

1 Answers1

2

Here is a brute-force solution. Note that for $z=a-ib$ with $a,b\in{\mathbb R}$, we have

$$ exp(z)=A-iB \ \textrm{with} \ A=e^a\cos(b), \ B=e^a\sin(b) \tag{1} $$

and

$$ exp(exp(z))=C-iD \ \textrm{with} \ C=e^A\cos(B), \ D=e^A\sin(B) \tag{2} $$

Also, let

$$ C^{\sharp}=C-a, D^{\sharp}=D-b \tag{3} $$

Thus, our goal is find $a,b$ such that $C^{\sharp}=D^{\sharp}=0$ but $(A,B)\neq(a,b)$. Let

$$ \begin{array}{c} a_1=1.94,\ a_2=2, {\cal A}=[a_1,a_2], \\ b_1=1.4,\ b_2=1.5, {\cal B}=[b_1,b_2], \\ {\cal R}={\cal A}\times{\cal B} \end{array}\tag{4} $$

We will show that there is a solution $(a,b)$ in the rectangle $\cal R$. We start by noting a few generic properties of a point $(a,b)\in{\cal R}$.

Note that ${\cal B}\subseteq (0,\frac{\pi}{2})$, an interval on which $\cos$ is positive and decreasing, and $\sin$ is positive and increasing.

We deduce

$$ \left\lbrace\begin{array}{l} e^{a_1}\cos(b_2) \leq A \leq e^{a_2}\cos(b_1), \\ e^{a_1}\sin(b_1) \leq B \leq e^{a_2}\sin(b_2) \end{array}\right.\tag{5} $$

We can apply this reasoning a second time : the interval in which $B$ lives, ${\cal B}'=[e^{a_1}\sin(b_1),e^{a_2}\sin(b_2)]=[6.85...,7.37...]$ is included in $2\pi+(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$, where again $\cos$ and $\sin$ are positive and monotone. So

$$ \left\lbrace\begin{array}{l} \cos(e^{a_2}\sin(b_2)) \leq \cos(B) \leq \cos(e^{a_1}\sin(b_1)), \\ \sin(e^{a_1}\sin(b_1)) \leq \sin(B) \leq \sin(e^{a_2}\sin(b_2)) \end{array}\right.\tag{6} $$

We can now show :

Lemma 1. Fix $a\in {\cal A}$ and let $b$ vary in $\cal B$. Then $C^{\sharp}$ and $D^{\sharp}$ are decreasing in $b$.

Proof of lemma 1. We have $D^{\sharp}=e^{A}\sin(B)-b$ and hence (the differentation denoted by $'$ is with respect to $b$)

$$ (D^{\sharp})'=A'e^{A}\sin(B)+e^{A}B'\cos(B)-1=e^{A}(A\cos(B)-B\sin(B))-1 \tag{7} $$

where in the last equality we have used $A'=-B$ and $B'=A$. So to show that $D^{\sharp}$ is decreasing, it will suffice to show that the quantity $q=A\cos(B)-B\sin(B)$ is negative ; but

$$ q \leq A-B\sin(B) \leq e^{a_2}\cos(b_1)-e^{a_1}\sin(b_1)\sin(e^{a_1}\sin(b_1))=-2.46\ldots \tag{8} $$

For $C^{\sharp}$, the proof is similar and easier : we have

$$ (D^{\sharp})'=A'e^{A}\cos(B)-e^{A}B'\sin(B)=e^{A}(-B\cos(B)-A\sin(B)) \tag{9} $$

and the negativity of this needs no numerical computation. This finishes the proof of lemma 1.

Lemma 2. Let $a\in {\cal A}$. Then $D^{\sharp}(a,b_1)\gt 0 \gt D^{\sharp}(a,b_2)$.

Proof of lemma 2. We have

$$ D^{\sharp}(a,b_1)=e^{A}\sin(B)-b_1 \geq e^{e^{a_1}\cos(b_1)}\sin(e^{a_1}\sin(b_1))-b_1=0.37\ldots \tag{10}$$.

which shows the fist half of the claim. The proof of the second half is similar. This finishes the proof of lemma 2.

Combining lemma 1 and lemma 2 with the intermediate value theorem, we see that for each $a\in{\cal A}$ there is a unique $\beta(a)\in{\cal B}$ such that $D^{\sharp}(a,\beta(a))=0$. Also, the implicit function theorem tells us that $\beta$ is differentiable, and hence continuous.

Lemma 3. We have $C^{\sharp}(a_1,\beta(a_1))\gt 0 \gt C^{\sharp}(a_2,\beta(a_2))$.

Proof of lemma 3. By numerical computation, we have

$$ D^{\sharp}(a_1,1.44)= -0.07\ldots \tag{11} $$

Since $D^{\sharp}$ is decreasing in $b$, we deduce $\beta(a_1)\lt 1.44$. But $C^{\sharp}$ is also decreasing in $b$, so that

$$ C^{\sharp}(a_1,\beta(a_1)) \gt C^{\sharp}(a_1,1.44) = 0.08\ldots \tag{12} $$

Another numerical computation yields

$$ C^{\sharp}(a_2,b_1)= -0.09\ldots \tag{13} $$

Using again the fact that $C^{\sharp}$ is also decreasing in $b$, we deduce

$$ C^{\sharp}(a_2,\beta(a_2)) \lt C^{\sharp}(a_2,b_1) \lt 0. \tag{14} $$

This finishes the proof of lemma 3.

Now, the map $a \mapsto C^{\sharp}(a,\beta(a))$ is continuous since $\beta$ and $C^{\sharp}$ are, so it must have a zero. This gives us a point of periodicity $1$ or $2$, and it cannot be a fixed point because for example

$$ B \gt e^{a_1}\sin(b_1) = 6.85\ldots \gt 1.5 \geq b \tag{15} $$

so that $B\neq b$. This finishes the answer.

Ewan Delanoy
  • 63,436