Re: Inverting Sin(x)=x
From: David W. Cantrell (DWCantrell_at_sigmaxi.org)
Date: 07/29/04
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: 'Uncountable' doesn't exist"
- Previous message: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- In reply to: John Schutkeker: "Re: Inverting Sin(x)=x"
- Next in thread: John Schutkeker: "Re: Inverting Sin(x)=x"
- Reply: John Schutkeker: "Re: Inverting Sin(x)=x"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 29 Jul 2004 19:07:44 GMT
John Schutkeker <johnny--mander@sbcglobal.net-nospam> wrote:
> David W. Cantrell <DWCantrell@sigmaxi.org> wrote in
> news:20040728103805.042$xY@newsreader.com:
[snip]
> What I'm wondering about is inverting y=Sin(x)+x. Given y(x), solve
> for x(y). Is this not an inverse?
Yes, it is.
> I've found a fair amount about series solutions, but they're not strictly
> closed form. That's what I'm asking about.
And of course, there's much about series solutions in the Colwell reference
I'd mentioned earlier. But they're attempting to solve Kepler's equation in
general. If you want to solve specifically just y=Sin(x)+x, then there are
series solutions which are perhaps unknown to you. For example, see the
last two articles in <http://mathforum.org/discuss/sci.math/t/360856>.
There is no closed-form solution in terms of familiar functions. However,
closed-form approximations could be certainly devised.
David Cantrell
- Next message: Torkel Franzen: "Re: 'Uncountable' doesn't exist"
- Previous message: Bart Goddard: "Re: The Electoral "College" and combinatorics"
- In reply to: John Schutkeker: "Re: Inverting Sin(x)=x"
- Next in thread: John Schutkeker: "Re: Inverting Sin(x)=x"
- Reply: John Schutkeker: "Re: Inverting Sin(x)=x"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]