Content deleted Content added
m →Verifying some formulas for fractional iteration: Still no feedback. |
Cuzkatzimhut (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 44:
:::You are evidently proposing rewrites of the [[Carleman matrix]] algorithm, which most of the references cited here hew to. An ambitious project. The Scroeder equation solves the project for somebody more advanced than the novice coming to this specific article here, as discussed above. Further technicalities would only obscure the picture here---but you could test-drive your proposals on [[superfunction]] which needs your, and anyone's really!, help. Are you ''sure'' you contacted the author [[User:Drschawrz]] of these sections? [[User:Cuzkatzimhut|Cuzkatzimhut]] ([[User talk:Cuzkatzimhut|talk]]) 10:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's been a week and nobody has provided any reason to think that the section on fractional iteration can be validated through being published. Ironically I don't disagree with the results, I just think they should be published first. [[User:Daniel Geisler|Daniel Geisler]] ([[User talk:Daniel Geisler|talk]]) 11:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
:? What exactly is your point? You are proposing to delete section 6 until somebody finds a remote refereed attribution for the elementary examples? As I indicated, this would be detrimental to the article, but not a tragedy, as they are misleading in suggesting to the reader how professionals in the field actually solve such equations in practice. To me, the examples appear obvious--the first naive thing that crosses one's mind--albeit off the mark. Starting from Babbage and continuing with Schroeder, both in the 19th century, conjugacy is '''the''' answer. Check it out on the iteration orbit of, e.g. sin(x) as contrasted to the actual answer, e.g. in [[http://iopscience.iop.org/1751-8121/44/40/405205/ the roots of sine]]. However, at the end of the day, I see no actual harm in these examples. [[User:Cuzkatzimhut|Cuzkatzimhut]] ([[User talk:Cuzkatzimhut|talk]]) 12:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
| |||