Does this growth model asymptote?












0












$begingroup$


I am interested in the following model: $$y'=frac{y^alpha}{e^{y}}$$ with $alpha>1, y(0)=1$ (this is a growth model of knowledge with self-amplification and exponentially increasing difficulty a la Rescher's law). Numerically it is easy to see that it follows a logistic-like curve of initial accelerating growth that levels off.



My question is whether $y$ properly asymptotes?



The RHS is always positive and nonzero, but declines strongly with increasing $y$. Is the positivity enough to prove lack of asymptoticity?



Trying to solve the equation gives me the expression$$t+C = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du$$ where symbolic integrators happily tell me the RHS is $(-1)^alpha [Gamma(1-alpha, -y) - Gamma(1-alpha,-1)]$ (with the incomplete gamma function) or $E_alpha(-1)-y^{1-alpha}E_alpha(-y)$ (with the exponential integral $E_n(x)=int_1^infty e^{-xu}u^{-alpha}du$). Both answers are confusing since the exponential integral looks divergent for negative $x$ and at least Matlab refuses to calculate the incomplete gamma function for doubly negative arguments. Numerically the integral is of course well behaved.



At the same time, squinting hard, if $t+C approx Gamma(y)$ then we have an answer since we know $y$ grows as the inverse of the factorial of time, i.e. absurdly slowly yet without bound.



I have a feeling that there is either a simple way of proving lack of asymptote, or that one can juggle the special functions into something more illuminating, that I am simply not seeing.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    I am interested in the following model: $$y'=frac{y^alpha}{e^{y}}$$ with $alpha>1, y(0)=1$ (this is a growth model of knowledge with self-amplification and exponentially increasing difficulty a la Rescher's law). Numerically it is easy to see that it follows a logistic-like curve of initial accelerating growth that levels off.



    My question is whether $y$ properly asymptotes?



    The RHS is always positive and nonzero, but declines strongly with increasing $y$. Is the positivity enough to prove lack of asymptoticity?



    Trying to solve the equation gives me the expression$$t+C = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du$$ where symbolic integrators happily tell me the RHS is $(-1)^alpha [Gamma(1-alpha, -y) - Gamma(1-alpha,-1)]$ (with the incomplete gamma function) or $E_alpha(-1)-y^{1-alpha}E_alpha(-y)$ (with the exponential integral $E_n(x)=int_1^infty e^{-xu}u^{-alpha}du$). Both answers are confusing since the exponential integral looks divergent for negative $x$ and at least Matlab refuses to calculate the incomplete gamma function for doubly negative arguments. Numerically the integral is of course well behaved.



    At the same time, squinting hard, if $t+C approx Gamma(y)$ then we have an answer since we know $y$ grows as the inverse of the factorial of time, i.e. absurdly slowly yet without bound.



    I have a feeling that there is either a simple way of proving lack of asymptote, or that one can juggle the special functions into something more illuminating, that I am simply not seeing.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      I am interested in the following model: $$y'=frac{y^alpha}{e^{y}}$$ with $alpha>1, y(0)=1$ (this is a growth model of knowledge with self-amplification and exponentially increasing difficulty a la Rescher's law). Numerically it is easy to see that it follows a logistic-like curve of initial accelerating growth that levels off.



      My question is whether $y$ properly asymptotes?



      The RHS is always positive and nonzero, but declines strongly with increasing $y$. Is the positivity enough to prove lack of asymptoticity?



      Trying to solve the equation gives me the expression$$t+C = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du$$ where symbolic integrators happily tell me the RHS is $(-1)^alpha [Gamma(1-alpha, -y) - Gamma(1-alpha,-1)]$ (with the incomplete gamma function) or $E_alpha(-1)-y^{1-alpha}E_alpha(-y)$ (with the exponential integral $E_n(x)=int_1^infty e^{-xu}u^{-alpha}du$). Both answers are confusing since the exponential integral looks divergent for negative $x$ and at least Matlab refuses to calculate the incomplete gamma function for doubly negative arguments. Numerically the integral is of course well behaved.



      At the same time, squinting hard, if $t+C approx Gamma(y)$ then we have an answer since we know $y$ grows as the inverse of the factorial of time, i.e. absurdly slowly yet without bound.



      I have a feeling that there is either a simple way of proving lack of asymptote, or that one can juggle the special functions into something more illuminating, that I am simply not seeing.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I am interested in the following model: $$y'=frac{y^alpha}{e^{y}}$$ with $alpha>1, y(0)=1$ (this is a growth model of knowledge with self-amplification and exponentially increasing difficulty a la Rescher's law). Numerically it is easy to see that it follows a logistic-like curve of initial accelerating growth that levels off.



      My question is whether $y$ properly asymptotes?



      The RHS is always positive and nonzero, but declines strongly with increasing $y$. Is the positivity enough to prove lack of asymptoticity?



      Trying to solve the equation gives me the expression$$t+C = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du$$ where symbolic integrators happily tell me the RHS is $(-1)^alpha [Gamma(1-alpha, -y) - Gamma(1-alpha,-1)]$ (with the incomplete gamma function) or $E_alpha(-1)-y^{1-alpha}E_alpha(-y)$ (with the exponential integral $E_n(x)=int_1^infty e^{-xu}u^{-alpha}du$). Both answers are confusing since the exponential integral looks divergent for negative $x$ and at least Matlab refuses to calculate the incomplete gamma function for doubly negative arguments. Numerically the integral is of course well behaved.



      At the same time, squinting hard, if $t+C approx Gamma(y)$ then we have an answer since we know $y$ grows as the inverse of the factorial of time, i.e. absurdly slowly yet without bound.



      I have a feeling that there is either a simple way of proving lack of asymptote, or that one can juggle the special functions into something more illuminating, that I am simply not seeing.







      ordinary-differential-equations asymptotics






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 10 at 13:12









      Anders SandbergAnders Sandberg

      1033




      1033






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          We have $y(t)>1$ for all $t>0$. Then $y'ge e^{-y}$. Multiplying by $e^y$ we get $(ey)'ge1$, and integrating $y(t)gelog(e+t)$. You can get better growth estimates now from $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Would you mind explain how $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ can be used to have a better estimate of the asymptotic behavior. This seems not simpler than the original $y'=y^alpha e^{-y}$ and requires the incomplete gamma function as well. Also I failed to use correctly $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ with numerical computation : It seems that the asymptotic goes away from the exact solution.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 7:49










          • $begingroup$
            @JJacquelin Integrate$$(e^y)'ge(log(e+t))^alpha.$$
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:20










          • $begingroup$
            Of course, that is what I did. As I already said, the result involves the Incomplete Gamma function in a formula even more complicated than when we directly integrate the original equation. What then ?
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 11:32










          • $begingroup$
            I did not do the calculations. Since $alpha>1$, we have $(e^y)'gelog(e+t)$, and this is easier to integrate.
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:40












          • $begingroup$
            After some trouble in the numerical integration, all is OK now. The corresponding limit curve is drawn in red on the last figure of my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 15 at 16:01





















          1












          $begingroup$

          With the condition $y(0)=1$ or equivalently $t(1)=0$ :
          $$t(y) = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du tag 1$$
          Of course a closed form for $t(y)$ is :
          $$t(y)=(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-y)-(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-1)$$
          For $alpha>1$ $Gamma(1-alpha,-y)$ is complex, but with the complex coefficient $(-1)^alpha$ one obtain real $t(y)$ on a convenient branch. This seems complicated, but there is no need to use the Incomplete Gamma function to compute and draw $t(y)$ and $y(t)$. Numerical calculus of the integral is much simpler.



          To draw $y(t)$, along numerical integration after each increment of $y$ one know the computed value of $t$. Then simply plot $(t,y)$.



          enter image description here



          ASYMPTOTIC STUDY :



          We could use more or less complicated set formulas issued from the knowledge of the properties of the Incomplete Gamma function. More directly by successive partial integration of $(1)$ :
          $$t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}left(1+frac{alpha}{y}+frac{alpha(alpha+1)}{y^2}t(y)+...+frac{alpha(alpha+1)(alpha+2)…(alpha+n-1)}{y^n} right) qquad ygg (alpha+n)$$



          Due to $e^y$, smaller terms related to the low limit of the integral are not included.



          The effect of the number or terms is shown on the next figure, for example in the case $alpha=2$ .



          enter image description here



          Of course, all those asymptotic approximates are false for small values of $t$ .



          Inverting the asymptotic formulas for $y(t)$ instead of $t(y)$ is arduous.



          Even with the leading term only $t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}$ the inverse function is a special function :
          $$y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$$
          This involves the Lambert W function. The function $W(X)$ is multi valuated for $X<0$. In the present case the branch $W_{-1}(X)$ where $W_{-1}(Xto 0^-)to -infty$ , so that $yto+infty$ .



          The asymptotic formula $y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$ is accurate only for very large values of $t$ , as shown on the next figure :



          enter image description here



          IN ADDITION :



          After the Julián Aguirre's comment, consider his proposed equation :
          $$y'geq left(log (e+t)right)^alpha$$
          which leads to :
          $$y(t)geq lnleft(e+int_0^t left(ln(e+tau) right)^a dtauright)$$
          Again a closed form for the integral requires the Incomplete Gamma function. Without using it and more simply the numerical integration allows to draw the lower limit for the asymptotic curve (red curve added on the last figure).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This is great! Together with Julián's answer we now have an upper and lower bound for the solution.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Jan 13 at 23:00











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3068626%2fdoes-this-growth-model-asymptote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          We have $y(t)>1$ for all $t>0$. Then $y'ge e^{-y}$. Multiplying by $e^y$ we get $(ey)'ge1$, and integrating $y(t)gelog(e+t)$. You can get better growth estimates now from $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Would you mind explain how $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ can be used to have a better estimate of the asymptotic behavior. This seems not simpler than the original $y'=y^alpha e^{-y}$ and requires the incomplete gamma function as well. Also I failed to use correctly $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ with numerical computation : It seems that the asymptotic goes away from the exact solution.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 7:49










          • $begingroup$
            @JJacquelin Integrate$$(e^y)'ge(log(e+t))^alpha.$$
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:20










          • $begingroup$
            Of course, that is what I did. As I already said, the result involves the Incomplete Gamma function in a formula even more complicated than when we directly integrate the original equation. What then ?
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 11:32










          • $begingroup$
            I did not do the calculations. Since $alpha>1$, we have $(e^y)'gelog(e+t)$, and this is easier to integrate.
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:40












          • $begingroup$
            After some trouble in the numerical integration, all is OK now. The corresponding limit curve is drawn in red on the last figure of my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 15 at 16:01


















          1












          $begingroup$

          We have $y(t)>1$ for all $t>0$. Then $y'ge e^{-y}$. Multiplying by $e^y$ we get $(ey)'ge1$, and integrating $y(t)gelog(e+t)$. You can get better growth estimates now from $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Would you mind explain how $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ can be used to have a better estimate of the asymptotic behavior. This seems not simpler than the original $y'=y^alpha e^{-y}$ and requires the incomplete gamma function as well. Also I failed to use correctly $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ with numerical computation : It seems that the asymptotic goes away from the exact solution.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 7:49










          • $begingroup$
            @JJacquelin Integrate$$(e^y)'ge(log(e+t))^alpha.$$
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:20










          • $begingroup$
            Of course, that is what I did. As I already said, the result involves the Incomplete Gamma function in a formula even more complicated than when we directly integrate the original equation. What then ?
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 11:32










          • $begingroup$
            I did not do the calculations. Since $alpha>1$, we have $(e^y)'gelog(e+t)$, and this is easier to integrate.
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:40












          • $begingroup$
            After some trouble in the numerical integration, all is OK now. The corresponding limit curve is drawn in red on the last figure of my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 15 at 16:01
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          We have $y(t)>1$ for all $t>0$. Then $y'ge e^{-y}$. Multiplying by $e^y$ we get $(ey)'ge1$, and integrating $y(t)gelog(e+t)$. You can get better growth estimates now from $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          We have $y(t)>1$ for all $t>0$. Then $y'ge e^{-y}$. Multiplying by $e^y$ we get $(ey)'ge1$, and integrating $y(t)gelog(e+t)$. You can get better growth estimates now from $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 10 at 19:18









          Julián AguirreJulián Aguirre

          68.1k24094




          68.1k24094












          • $begingroup$
            Would you mind explain how $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ can be used to have a better estimate of the asymptotic behavior. This seems not simpler than the original $y'=y^alpha e^{-y}$ and requires the incomplete gamma function as well. Also I failed to use correctly $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ with numerical computation : It seems that the asymptotic goes away from the exact solution.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 7:49










          • $begingroup$
            @JJacquelin Integrate$$(e^y)'ge(log(e+t))^alpha.$$
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:20










          • $begingroup$
            Of course, that is what I did. As I already said, the result involves the Incomplete Gamma function in a formula even more complicated than when we directly integrate the original equation. What then ?
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 11:32










          • $begingroup$
            I did not do the calculations. Since $alpha>1$, we have $(e^y)'gelog(e+t)$, and this is easier to integrate.
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:40












          • $begingroup$
            After some trouble in the numerical integration, all is OK now. The corresponding limit curve is drawn in red on the last figure of my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 15 at 16:01




















          • $begingroup$
            Would you mind explain how $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ can be used to have a better estimate of the asymptotic behavior. This seems not simpler than the original $y'=y^alpha e^{-y}$ and requires the incomplete gamma function as well. Also I failed to use correctly $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ with numerical computation : It seems that the asymptotic goes away from the exact solution.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 7:49










          • $begingroup$
            @JJacquelin Integrate$$(e^y)'ge(log(e+t))^alpha.$$
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:20










          • $begingroup$
            Of course, that is what I did. As I already said, the result involves the Incomplete Gamma function in a formula even more complicated than when we directly integrate the original equation. What then ?
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 14 at 11:32










          • $begingroup$
            I did not do the calculations. Since $alpha>1$, we have $(e^y)'gelog(e+t)$, and this is easier to integrate.
            $endgroup$
            – Julián Aguirre
            Jan 14 at 11:40












          • $begingroup$
            After some trouble in the numerical integration, all is OK now. The corresponding limit curve is drawn in red on the last figure of my answer.
            $endgroup$
            – JJacquelin
            Jan 15 at 16:01


















          $begingroup$
          Would you mind explain how $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ can be used to have a better estimate of the asymptotic behavior. This seems not simpler than the original $y'=y^alpha e^{-y}$ and requires the incomplete gamma function as well. Also I failed to use correctly $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ with numerical computation : It seems that the asymptotic goes away from the exact solution.
          $endgroup$
          – JJacquelin
          Jan 14 at 7:49




          $begingroup$
          Would you mind explain how $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ can be used to have a better estimate of the asymptotic behavior. This seems not simpler than the original $y'=y^alpha e^{-y}$ and requires the incomplete gamma function as well. Also I failed to use correctly $y'gelog(e+t)^alpha e^{-y}$ with numerical computation : It seems that the asymptotic goes away from the exact solution.
          $endgroup$
          – JJacquelin
          Jan 14 at 7:49












          $begingroup$
          @JJacquelin Integrate$$(e^y)'ge(log(e+t))^alpha.$$
          $endgroup$
          – Julián Aguirre
          Jan 14 at 11:20




          $begingroup$
          @JJacquelin Integrate$$(e^y)'ge(log(e+t))^alpha.$$
          $endgroup$
          – Julián Aguirre
          Jan 14 at 11:20












          $begingroup$
          Of course, that is what I did. As I already said, the result involves the Incomplete Gamma function in a formula even more complicated than when we directly integrate the original equation. What then ?
          $endgroup$
          – JJacquelin
          Jan 14 at 11:32




          $begingroup$
          Of course, that is what I did. As I already said, the result involves the Incomplete Gamma function in a formula even more complicated than when we directly integrate the original equation. What then ?
          $endgroup$
          – JJacquelin
          Jan 14 at 11:32












          $begingroup$
          I did not do the calculations. Since $alpha>1$, we have $(e^y)'gelog(e+t)$, and this is easier to integrate.
          $endgroup$
          – Julián Aguirre
          Jan 14 at 11:40






          $begingroup$
          I did not do the calculations. Since $alpha>1$, we have $(e^y)'gelog(e+t)$, and this is easier to integrate.
          $endgroup$
          – Julián Aguirre
          Jan 14 at 11:40














          $begingroup$
          After some trouble in the numerical integration, all is OK now. The corresponding limit curve is drawn in red on the last figure of my answer.
          $endgroup$
          – JJacquelin
          Jan 15 at 16:01






          $begingroup$
          After some trouble in the numerical integration, all is OK now. The corresponding limit curve is drawn in red on the last figure of my answer.
          $endgroup$
          – JJacquelin
          Jan 15 at 16:01













          1












          $begingroup$

          With the condition $y(0)=1$ or equivalently $t(1)=0$ :
          $$t(y) = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du tag 1$$
          Of course a closed form for $t(y)$ is :
          $$t(y)=(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-y)-(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-1)$$
          For $alpha>1$ $Gamma(1-alpha,-y)$ is complex, but with the complex coefficient $(-1)^alpha$ one obtain real $t(y)$ on a convenient branch. This seems complicated, but there is no need to use the Incomplete Gamma function to compute and draw $t(y)$ and $y(t)$. Numerical calculus of the integral is much simpler.



          To draw $y(t)$, along numerical integration after each increment of $y$ one know the computed value of $t$. Then simply plot $(t,y)$.



          enter image description here



          ASYMPTOTIC STUDY :



          We could use more or less complicated set formulas issued from the knowledge of the properties of the Incomplete Gamma function. More directly by successive partial integration of $(1)$ :
          $$t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}left(1+frac{alpha}{y}+frac{alpha(alpha+1)}{y^2}t(y)+...+frac{alpha(alpha+1)(alpha+2)…(alpha+n-1)}{y^n} right) qquad ygg (alpha+n)$$



          Due to $e^y$, smaller terms related to the low limit of the integral are not included.



          The effect of the number or terms is shown on the next figure, for example in the case $alpha=2$ .



          enter image description here



          Of course, all those asymptotic approximates are false for small values of $t$ .



          Inverting the asymptotic formulas for $y(t)$ instead of $t(y)$ is arduous.



          Even with the leading term only $t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}$ the inverse function is a special function :
          $$y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$$
          This involves the Lambert W function. The function $W(X)$ is multi valuated for $X<0$. In the present case the branch $W_{-1}(X)$ where $W_{-1}(Xto 0^-)to -infty$ , so that $yto+infty$ .



          The asymptotic formula $y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$ is accurate only for very large values of $t$ , as shown on the next figure :



          enter image description here



          IN ADDITION :



          After the Julián Aguirre's comment, consider his proposed equation :
          $$y'geq left(log (e+t)right)^alpha$$
          which leads to :
          $$y(t)geq lnleft(e+int_0^t left(ln(e+tau) right)^a dtauright)$$
          Again a closed form for the integral requires the Incomplete Gamma function. Without using it and more simply the numerical integration allows to draw the lower limit for the asymptotic curve (red curve added on the last figure).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This is great! Together with Julián's answer we now have an upper and lower bound for the solution.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Jan 13 at 23:00
















          1












          $begingroup$

          With the condition $y(0)=1$ or equivalently $t(1)=0$ :
          $$t(y) = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du tag 1$$
          Of course a closed form for $t(y)$ is :
          $$t(y)=(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-y)-(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-1)$$
          For $alpha>1$ $Gamma(1-alpha,-y)$ is complex, but with the complex coefficient $(-1)^alpha$ one obtain real $t(y)$ on a convenient branch. This seems complicated, but there is no need to use the Incomplete Gamma function to compute and draw $t(y)$ and $y(t)$. Numerical calculus of the integral is much simpler.



          To draw $y(t)$, along numerical integration after each increment of $y$ one know the computed value of $t$. Then simply plot $(t,y)$.



          enter image description here



          ASYMPTOTIC STUDY :



          We could use more or less complicated set formulas issued from the knowledge of the properties of the Incomplete Gamma function. More directly by successive partial integration of $(1)$ :
          $$t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}left(1+frac{alpha}{y}+frac{alpha(alpha+1)}{y^2}t(y)+...+frac{alpha(alpha+1)(alpha+2)…(alpha+n-1)}{y^n} right) qquad ygg (alpha+n)$$



          Due to $e^y$, smaller terms related to the low limit of the integral are not included.



          The effect of the number or terms is shown on the next figure, for example in the case $alpha=2$ .



          enter image description here



          Of course, all those asymptotic approximates are false for small values of $t$ .



          Inverting the asymptotic formulas for $y(t)$ instead of $t(y)$ is arduous.



          Even with the leading term only $t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}$ the inverse function is a special function :
          $$y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$$
          This involves the Lambert W function. The function $W(X)$ is multi valuated for $X<0$. In the present case the branch $W_{-1}(X)$ where $W_{-1}(Xto 0^-)to -infty$ , so that $yto+infty$ .



          The asymptotic formula $y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$ is accurate only for very large values of $t$ , as shown on the next figure :



          enter image description here



          IN ADDITION :



          After the Julián Aguirre's comment, consider his proposed equation :
          $$y'geq left(log (e+t)right)^alpha$$
          which leads to :
          $$y(t)geq lnleft(e+int_0^t left(ln(e+tau) right)^a dtauright)$$
          Again a closed form for the integral requires the Incomplete Gamma function. Without using it and more simply the numerical integration allows to draw the lower limit for the asymptotic curve (red curve added on the last figure).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This is great! Together with Julián's answer we now have an upper and lower bound for the solution.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Jan 13 at 23:00














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          With the condition $y(0)=1$ or equivalently $t(1)=0$ :
          $$t(y) = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du tag 1$$
          Of course a closed form for $t(y)$ is :
          $$t(y)=(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-y)-(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-1)$$
          For $alpha>1$ $Gamma(1-alpha,-y)$ is complex, but with the complex coefficient $(-1)^alpha$ one obtain real $t(y)$ on a convenient branch. This seems complicated, but there is no need to use the Incomplete Gamma function to compute and draw $t(y)$ and $y(t)$. Numerical calculus of the integral is much simpler.



          To draw $y(t)$, along numerical integration after each increment of $y$ one know the computed value of $t$. Then simply plot $(t,y)$.



          enter image description here



          ASYMPTOTIC STUDY :



          We could use more or less complicated set formulas issued from the knowledge of the properties of the Incomplete Gamma function. More directly by successive partial integration of $(1)$ :
          $$t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}left(1+frac{alpha}{y}+frac{alpha(alpha+1)}{y^2}t(y)+...+frac{alpha(alpha+1)(alpha+2)…(alpha+n-1)}{y^n} right) qquad ygg (alpha+n)$$



          Due to $e^y$, smaller terms related to the low limit of the integral are not included.



          The effect of the number or terms is shown on the next figure, for example in the case $alpha=2$ .



          enter image description here



          Of course, all those asymptotic approximates are false for small values of $t$ .



          Inverting the asymptotic formulas for $y(t)$ instead of $t(y)$ is arduous.



          Even with the leading term only $t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}$ the inverse function is a special function :
          $$y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$$
          This involves the Lambert W function. The function $W(X)$ is multi valuated for $X<0$. In the present case the branch $W_{-1}(X)$ where $W_{-1}(Xto 0^-)to -infty$ , so that $yto+infty$ .



          The asymptotic formula $y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$ is accurate only for very large values of $t$ , as shown on the next figure :



          enter image description here



          IN ADDITION :



          After the Julián Aguirre's comment, consider his proposed equation :
          $$y'geq left(log (e+t)right)^alpha$$
          which leads to :
          $$y(t)geq lnleft(e+int_0^t left(ln(e+tau) right)^a dtauright)$$
          Again a closed form for the integral requires the Incomplete Gamma function. Without using it and more simply the numerical integration allows to draw the lower limit for the asymptotic curve (red curve added on the last figure).






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          With the condition $y(0)=1$ or equivalently $t(1)=0$ :
          $$t(y) = int_1^y e^u u^{-alpha} du tag 1$$
          Of course a closed form for $t(y)$ is :
          $$t(y)=(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-y)-(-1)^alphaGamma(1-alpha,-1)$$
          For $alpha>1$ $Gamma(1-alpha,-y)$ is complex, but with the complex coefficient $(-1)^alpha$ one obtain real $t(y)$ on a convenient branch. This seems complicated, but there is no need to use the Incomplete Gamma function to compute and draw $t(y)$ and $y(t)$. Numerical calculus of the integral is much simpler.



          To draw $y(t)$, along numerical integration after each increment of $y$ one know the computed value of $t$. Then simply plot $(t,y)$.



          enter image description here



          ASYMPTOTIC STUDY :



          We could use more or less complicated set formulas issued from the knowledge of the properties of the Incomplete Gamma function. More directly by successive partial integration of $(1)$ :
          $$t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}left(1+frac{alpha}{y}+frac{alpha(alpha+1)}{y^2}t(y)+...+frac{alpha(alpha+1)(alpha+2)…(alpha+n-1)}{y^n} right) qquad ygg (alpha+n)$$



          Due to $e^y$, smaller terms related to the low limit of the integral are not included.



          The effect of the number or terms is shown on the next figure, for example in the case $alpha=2$ .



          enter image description here



          Of course, all those asymptotic approximates are false for small values of $t$ .



          Inverting the asymptotic formulas for $y(t)$ instead of $t(y)$ is arduous.



          Even with the leading term only $t(y)sim frac{e^y}{y^alpha}$ the inverse function is a special function :
          $$y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$$
          This involves the Lambert W function. The function $W(X)$ is multi valuated for $X<0$. In the present case the branch $W_{-1}(X)$ where $W_{-1}(Xto 0^-)to -infty$ , so that $yto+infty$ .



          The asymptotic formula $y(t)sim -alpha: W_{-1}left(-frac{1}{alpha:t^{1/alpha}} right)$ is accurate only for very large values of $t$ , as shown on the next figure :



          enter image description here



          IN ADDITION :



          After the Julián Aguirre's comment, consider his proposed equation :
          $$y'geq left(log (e+t)right)^alpha$$
          which leads to :
          $$y(t)geq lnleft(e+int_0^t left(ln(e+tau) right)^a dtauright)$$
          Again a closed form for the integral requires the Incomplete Gamma function. Without using it and more simply the numerical integration allows to draw the lower limit for the asymptotic curve (red curve added on the last figure).







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 15 at 16:24

























          answered Jan 13 at 19:10









          JJacquelinJJacquelin

          43.2k21752




          43.2k21752












          • $begingroup$
            This is great! Together with Julián's answer we now have an upper and lower bound for the solution.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Jan 13 at 23:00


















          • $begingroup$
            This is great! Together with Julián's answer we now have an upper and lower bound for the solution.
            $endgroup$
            – Anders Sandberg
            Jan 13 at 23:00
















          $begingroup$
          This is great! Together with Julián's answer we now have an upper and lower bound for the solution.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Jan 13 at 23:00




          $begingroup$
          This is great! Together with Julián's answer we now have an upper and lower bound for the solution.
          $endgroup$
          – Anders Sandberg
          Jan 13 at 23:00


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3068626%2fdoes-this-growth-model-asymptote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Mario Kart Wii

          The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

          What does “Dominus providebit” mean?