Talk:Minkowski's question mark function
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just a comment, this has to be the worst example of bad choice of notation...what was he thinking?? Revolver 07:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Dates back to the dawn of the discovery of pathological functions, at the turn of the 20th century. Maybe it was felt to be very confusing? And maybe he had a twisted sense of humour. linas 00:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Why is ? any crazier than ! (asks one who shorthands sin and cos with $ and ¢)? Kwantus 2005 June 29 17:52 (UTC)
- Worse yet, it conflicts with a much more useful notation, d?k for the binomial coefficient d!/(d−k)!k!, generalizing to ?〈i0,…,in〉 for the multinomial coefficient of a multi-index. Without regard for degree we can write
- as the general term of a multinomial expansion, where the multi-index exponent, as usual, means
-
,
- and
- equals the degree. Ah well; there's little chance of confusion. --KSmrqT 20:53, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
[edit] Question
The fractal and self-similar nature of the function is unclear. Exactly how does the modular group describe the self-similarity? AxelBoldt 03:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, its a sloppy statement; it is only the "period-doubling monoid" inside SL(2,Z) (and not the modular group PSL(2,Z)) that applies to period-doubling fractals. (Different people seem to call this monoid different names). Consider the operators R and S:
-
- [S?](x) = ?(x / 1 + x) = ?(x) / 2
- Note that the above is a self-symmetry for x in [0,1]: the question mark on the interval [0,1/2] is a half-size of the whole thing. Let R be a reflection:
-
- [R?](x) = ?(1 − x) = 1 − ?(x)
- Then R and S generate the monoid: that is, any string of the form
-
- SmRSnRSp...
- for positive integers m,n,p ... is a self-symmetry of the question mark. The requirement that m,n,p be poistive is what makes it a monoid,nt a group. linas 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I fixed the article. The relationship to SL(2,Z)/PSL(2,Z) etc. is not hard but has some subtle confusions.linas 03:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] question
Is this function really absolutely continuous?
[edit] question/correction? =
When reading the page 84 of my copy of John Conway's "On Numbers and Games" (2nd edition, 2001, A K Peters, Ltd) I see at the top:
+---------------+ | | | (1+sqrt(5))/2 | = 5/3 | | +---------------+
The function here called [x] is traditionally called "Minkowski's Question-Mark Function," and has interesting analytic properties.
(Where [x] is my ascii rendition of "x in a box"). So Conway _does not_ indicate the inverse of Minkowski's ? with a box as is claimed in the article, but the Minkowski's ?-mark function itself!
BTW, I created a new index entry to Sloane's OEIS for related sequences: http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/Sindx_Me.html#MinkowskiQ You may add it to the external links section.
Yours, Antti Karttunen, his-firstname.his-surname@gmail.com
PS. You (Linas) erroneously claim on your "Wacky Thoughts" page that Minkowski's Question mark-function maps algebraic numbers to rationals, whereas it's only the "quadratic surd" -subset of them. (Like correctly explained on this page.)