2
$\begingroup$

Let $f(x,y)$ be a symmetric real function and a formal group law

$$G(x + y) = f(G(x),G(y)). \tag{1}$$

Consider the equation

$$ h(2x) = f(h(x),h(x)) = A(h(x)). \tag{2}$$

This equation has many solutions.

Compute a solution to that equation with the fixed point at $0$ and its Koenigs function, and call the solution $k(x)$.

So

$$k(2x) = A(k(x)). \tag{3}$$

Then it seems it is always true that

Conjecture $T$:

$$ G(x) = k(x), \tag{4}$$ $$ G(x+y) = k(x+y) = f(k(x),k(y)). \tag{5}$$

Of course we can not use The Koenigs function if its conditions are not met, and there is no way around it. In other words The fixed point of $A(x)$ (at $0$) should not be parabolic and must be strictly positive.

I searched the Internet for Koenigs function and formal group law but did not find them combined.

Is conjecture $T$ true? How is it proved?

——

After hesitation I considered posting A generalisation that might be helpful.

Generalization

Let $ g(2x) = A(g(x)) [1]$

and

$ g(x+1) = B(g(x)) [2] $.

( [3] note : $[1]+[2]$ define $g$ uniquely and equivalently they define $f(x,y)$ uniquely )

Let $ K_1(x) $ be the solution to $ K_1(2x) = A(K_1(x)) $ obtained by using the associated koenigs function.

Likewise Let $ K_2(x) $ be the solution to $ K_2(x+1) = B(K_2(x)) $ obtained by using the associated koenigs function.

Conjectures :

A) $K_1(x) $ satisfies $[2]$.

B) $K_2(x) $ satisfies $[1]$.

C) $K_1 = K_2$

D) $ K_1 = g $

E) $ K_2 = g $

Ofcourse these conjectures relate to each other and proving a few is equivalent to proving them all because of note [3].

Ps: it might be intresting to consider ( or generalize the conjecture ) replacing [2] with $g(x + q) = B_q(g(x)) $ for Some ( or any ) values of $q$ say eg 2 or e.

——

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ What is $G$? What is $A$? $\endgroup$ – Jairo Bochi Mar 3 at 19:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, $G$ would seem to be an exponential map (inverse of logarithm) from the additive formal group to what might be the formal group $f$. $\endgroup$ – Lubin Mar 3 at 23:24
  • $\begingroup$ Pleae give a non-trivial example of your generalization.[1] and [2]. $\endgroup$ – Somos Mar 9 at 16:27
  • $\begingroup$ I think the velocity addition formula ( tanh = g ) serves as an example. @Somos. Not to easy and not too hard. $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 9 at 19:38
1
$\begingroup$

We are given a formal group law defined by $$ f(x,y) = f(y,x) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty P_n(x,y) \tag{1} $$ which satisfies the associativity equation $$ f(x,f(y,z)) = f(f(x,y),z) \tag{2} $$ and where the symmetric polynomials $\,P_n(x,y)\,$ are $$ P_0 \!=\! x\! + \!y,\; P_1 \!=\! a_1 x\,y,\; P_2 \!=\! a_2x\,y\,(x\!+\!y),\,\\ P_3 \!=\! a_3x\,y\,(x^2\!+\!y^2) \!+\! \frac12(2a_1a_2\!+\!3a_3)x^2y^2,\, \dots\,. \tag{3}$$ We seek a homomorphism function $\,g(x)\,$ that satisfies $$ g(x\!+\!y) \!=\! f(g(x),g(y)) \;\textrm{where}\; g(x) \!=\! x \!+\! \sum_{n=1}^\infty c_n x^n. \tag{4} $$ Notice that if we define $$ A(x) := 1 \!+\! \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n x^n = f^{(0,1)}(x,0) \tag{5} $$ and differentiate equation $(4)$ w.r.t. $\,y\,$ at $\,y=0\,$ we get $$ g'(x) = A(g(x)) \tag{6} $$ and leads to an iterative method to find $\,g(x).\,$ Define the recurrence relation sequence $$ g_{n+1}(x) :=\! \int_0^x \! A(g_n(y)) \,dy \;\;\textrm{with}\;\; g_0(x) := O(x). \tag{7} $$ Since $\, g_n(x) \to g(x)\,$ as $\,n \to \infty,\,$ $\,g(x)\,$ is uniquely determined.

Now we use another approach. Using equation (4) define the function $$ B(x) := f(x,x) \;\;\textrm{with}\;\; g(2x) = B(g(x)) \tag{8}$$ and construct the recurrence relation sequence $$ g_{n+1}(x) \!:=\! g_n(x) \!-\! \frac{(g_n(2x) \!-\! B(g_n(x)) }{ (2^{n+1}\!-\!2) }\!+\! O(x^{n+2}) \tag{9} $$ with $\, g_1(x) \!:=\! x \!+\! O(x^2). \,$ Unlike equation $(6)$ which leads immediately to a recursion which adds one more term of the power series for each iteration, equation $(8)$ does not do so. However, a standard trick is to add an extra term with an unknown coefficient and use equation $(8)$ to solve for the unknown coefficient which leads to equation $(9)$. The sequence $\,g_n(x)\,$ is the same as in equation $(7)$ and that proves conjecture $T$.

P.S. About Koenigs function notice that the definition is that given function $\,F(z)\,$ the function $\,k(z)\,$ is the Koenigs function for $\,F\,$ iff $\, k(F(z)) = F'(0)k(z).\,$ First, using the inverse function $\,k^{-1}(z)\,$ we get the alternative form $\,k^{-1}(F'(0)z) = F(k^{-1}(z)).\,$ Second, this is for analytic functions but it naturally extends to formal power series and, in that case, the restriction to $\,|k'(0)|<1\,$ does not apply. If we combine these two together then your equations $(2)$ and $(4)$ state that $\,k^{-1}(x)\,$ is the Koenigs function for $\,A(x).\,$ Now my equation $(8)$ states that $\,g^{-1}(x)\,$ is the Koenings function for $\,B(x)\,$. They say essentially the same thing.

Some details summarized are:

Suppose we have two formal power series $\,f(x),\,g(x)\,$ that satisfy equation $(4)$. The function $\,g(x)\,$ has an inverse function $\,g^{-1}(x)\,$ and applying it to equation $(4)$ gives $$ f(x,y)=f\left(g(g^{-1}(x)),\; g(g^{-1}(y))\right)=g(g^{-1}(x)+g^{-1}(y)).\tag{10} $$ Addition being commutative, associative and with a zero immediately implies $$ f(x,y) = f(y,x), \; f(x,f(y,z)) = f(f(x,y),z), \; f(x,0) = x, \tag{11} $$ and also, that the function $\,f(x,y)\,$ is uniquely determined by the function $\,g(x),\,$ implying that the $\,a_n\,$ are polynomials in $\,c_n:$ $$ a_1=+2c_1,\; a_2=-2c_1^2+3c_2,\; a_3=+4c_1^3-8c_1c_2+4c_3,\;\dots \tag{12} $$ and, of course, $\,g(x)\,$ is uniquely determined by the function $\,A(x):$ $$ c_1=\frac12a_1,\; c_2=\frac13a_2 +\frac16a_1^2,\; c_3=\frac14a_3 +\frac13a_1a_2 +\frac1{24}a_1^3,\;\dots. \tag{13} $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Somos. Unfortunately my math skills are still relatively weak and I am new to it. In other words I assume your answer is correct but I have trouble understanding. I think you are going a bit to fast for me. Maybe a longer answer will illuminate me. This is The first time I think about formal groups laws , so Im a beginner. More concrete : The polynomials you define are not completely clear to me , nor how The $a_i$ are related. But maybe only The first polynomial matters , and you merely point out that we have a taylor. Im not sure how A and B relate , I assume that matters. $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 6 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ Also I assume your last equation is suppose to be The koenigs function. You actually nowhere mention The koenigs function ! I assume you have 7) and 9) both convergent and equal to each other by a “ telescoping argument “ but I fail to see it. Sorry for my confusion ! $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 6 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ $g(x)$ is The functional inverse of koenigs function : $ 2^n c^n(x) $ where $c$ is The functional inverse $D(x) $ defined by $ g(2x) = D(g(x)) $. How is that equal to (9) WITH proof ? Is (9) derived from a kind of Newton iterations to find the inverse function and then plugged in The koenigs ? The thing is(9) comes out of nowhere without explaination. And how (7) = (9) is also not explained. I believe it ... but I need to see it. My skills may be limited sorry , but I think a bit more details would do miracles. So , Is Newton iteration used ? Or similar ? Am I even thinking in The right way ? $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 7 at 12:27
  • $\begingroup$ You are correct about the inverse Koenings function which I had overlooked before. I added a sentence of explanation of the standard trick in equation (9). As for (7)=(9), do the math. $\endgroup$ – Somos Mar 7 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ I understand that (7) is a Nice way tot compute the unique solution $g$ and therefore also (9) assuming equality. Convergeance also assumed. I have not thought deep about convergeance of radius of convergeance but because of the uniqueness of both g and Taylor series in general this seems unneccessary. But the Point =I can post methods to compute g too.Computing g wasnt the problem of the OP. Showing the equivalence with koenigs method was.You claim (7)= (9) = inverse koenigs ... Without proof ? This sounds like repeating the question.It really needs to be shown beyond doubt.Observing ≠ proof. $\endgroup$ – mick Mar 7 at 21:39

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.