Re: Numerical instability of j_1(x)=sin(Pi*x)^2+sin(Pi*(gamma(x)+1)/x)^2

Aurel Page <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.mathematics.pari.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Dear Georgi,

Look at the values of (gamma(x)+1)/x at the boundaries of your interval 
and their difference, and you will realise that your function oscillates 
more than 10^14 times in this interval.

Best,
Aurel

On 01/02/2023 08:50, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> The function:
>
> j_1(x)=sin(Pi*x)^2+sin(Pi*(gamma(x)+1)/x)^2
>
> has real zeros at the primes for x>1.
> This is essentially Wilson's theorem over the reals.
> For some properties of j_1 check the note [1].
> For integer x, j_1(x)=0 if x is prime and j_1(x)=sin(Pi/x)^2
> otherwise.
>
> ? j_1(40.0+20.*I)
> fails in pari, but I don't care about this.
>
> The following plot looks like a mess to me:
>
> ? ploth(x=20-1/100,20+1/100,j_1(x))
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Is the messy plot correctly computed or is it a bug?
> 2. Can we get rid of the complex zeros with Re(x)>1
> to remain only the primes as zeros?
> Outline of attacks is at [2] on mathoverflow.
>
> mpmath also gives messy plots but appears to compute it
> for larger argument.
>
> [1]:
> Note: simple real function with zeros greater than one the primes
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367520640_Note_simple_real_function_with_zeros_greater_than_one_the_primes
>
> [2]:
> https://mathoverflow.net/questions/439688/getting-rid-of-complex-zeros-of-function-with-zeros-the-primes
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.