[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 10 KB, 250x250, firework.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570587 No.8570587 [Reply] [Original]

I know this function F(x) converges,
because terms of [math]e^x[/math] converge,
and [math]L_n(x)[/math] is decreasing, duh
but how do I graph this doggie?
[math]\displaystyle F(x)= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}F_n(x)=e^{-x}[L_1(x)+xL_2(x)+\frac{x^2}{2!}L_3(x)+ \cdots+\frac{x^n}{n!}L_{n+1}(x)][/math]
where [math]n \epsilon \mathbb{N}[/math]
and [math]x \geq 0[/math]
and [math]L_0(x)=x[/math]
and [math]L_n(x)= \ln(L_{n-1}(x)+1)[/math]

>> No.8570596

missed it by *that* much
[math]n \epsilon \mathbb{N}[/math]

>> No.8570625 [DELETED] 
File: 81 KB, 480x760, Screen Shot 2016-12-30 at 10.13.12.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570625

>> No.8570630
File: 74 KB, 563x747, Screen Shot 2016-12-30 at 10.16.20.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570630

>> No.8570631
File: 86 KB, 675x736, Screen Shot 2016-12-30 at 10.17.38.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8570631

>> No.8570647

>>8570630
>>8570631
...what part of x ≥ 0 did we miss, Anon?
...and those graphs are totally whack.

>> No.8570649

>>8570647
>...and those graphs are totally whack.
No they're not.

>> No.8570683

>>8570649
>No they're not.
>they're not, they're not, they're not
Yes, they are.

>> No.8570938

>>8570647
I don't get your x >= 0 question.

>> No.8570948

>>8570630
>>8570631
Mathematica's scripting language is so fucking disgusting. I'm glad I don't need to use it.

>> No.8572744

>>8570938
>I don't get your x >= 0
ftfo fgt pls

>> No.8572780

>>8570683
Bahahaha "they are" is correct. Stick to math, correct people's english clearly isn't your thing

>> No.8572798

>>8570948
>Anonymous 12/30/16(Fri)15:23:22 No.857
It's okay. But are there any alternatives? I was thinking of learning SAGE but would like to know about the alternatives.

>> No.8573853

>>8570647
took me a while to figure them out,
looks a bit like the graph of
[math]xe^{-x}[/math]
thanks

>> No.8574718

>>8572780
wat