I've been trying to add math rigor to a solution of the functional equation in [1], eq. (22). It is:
f(xf(x))=1f(x),
where you know that f(0)=1 and f(−x)=f(x).
I've been trying to fill in the missing steps. Let's use a substitution g(x)=xf(x). So we rewrite the functional equation as
x=xf(x)f(xf(x))
and get
x=g(g(x)).
Then we calculate g′(0) as follows:
g′(0)=(xf(x))′|x=0=f(x)−xf′(x)f2(x)|x=0=f(0)f2(0)=1.
Also we can use that g(x) is odd
g(−x)=−xf(−x)=−xf(x)=−g(x).
Whenever g(g(x))=x, I have found that this is called involution. That can have many solutions, but using g(−x)=−g(x) and g′(0)=1, there should be a way to prove that g(x)=x, from which f(x)=1 as the only solution.
The article [1] just says, that since g(x)=g−1(x), the graph of g(x) and its inverse must be symmetric along the y=x axis, and since the tangent at x=0 is equal to this same line, then g(x)=x must be the only solution. They do mention that this is not completely rigorous proof.
You can assume that f(x) is differentiable. It'd be nice if it can be proven only for continuous functions f(x), but any proof at first would be a good start, even with stronger assumptions.
Update: another idea is to use the fact, that if a and b are two points in the domain of the g function for which g(a)=g(b), then it follows that
g(g(a))=g(g(b)) and a=b, which proves that the function is one-to-one.
Given that g is continuous, it means that it is strictly increasing or decreasing [2]. From that, let's say it's increasing, then we can use y=g(x), if y<x, then g(y)<g(x) from which g(g(x))<y and x<y which is a contradiction. Similarly for y>x. So we must have y=x, from which g(x)=x. If g is decreasing, then we set h(x)=−g(x), obtain h(x)=x and g(x)=−x. Unless I made a mistake we got g(x)=±x. And using g′(0)=1, we get g(x)=x as the only solution. But I don't feel very good about this proof yet.
[1] Levy-Leblond, J.-M. (1976). One more derivation of the Lorentz transformation. American Journal of Physics, 44(3), 271–277.
[2] A continuous, injective function f:R→R is either strictly increasing or strictly decreasing.
No comments:
Post a Comment