The North Alpine foreland basin (NAFB) in Germany is characterized by various types of sedimentologic features that make it an excellent terrestrial analog of regions affected by high-energy asteroid impact-quakes on Mars. Impact events have shaped all planetary bodies in the inner Solar System over the past >4 Gyr. The well-preserved Ries impact crater (Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria), formed around 14.8 Ma, has recently been linked to an earthquake-produced seismite horizon in Mid-Miocene NAFB sediments that exhibits typical dewatering structures and is associated with sand spikes, seismically produced pin-shaped pseudo-concretions. In this terrestrial setting, the sand spike tails systematically point away from the Ries crater. On its path across Gale Crater, the Mars rover Curiosity seems to have observed a similar seismite horizon in early Hesperian lacustrine deposits including clastic dikes, convolute bedding, and, likely, sand spikes. Their orientation suggests that the nearby Slagnos impact crater might be the seismic source for the formation of those seismites. The Ries impact–seismite deposits can be traced over a distance of more than 200 km from the source crater (northern Switzerland), which makes the NAFB an excellent terrestrial analog for similar deposits and their sedimentologic inventory within Gale Crater's lake deposits on Mars.
Citation: Elmar Buchner, Volker J Sach, Martin Schmieder. Ries impact deposits in the North Alpine Foreland Basin of Germany as a terrestrial analog site for impact-produced seismites and sand spikes on planet Mars[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(1): 68-90. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025005
[1] | Feng Qi . Completely monotonic degree of a function involving trigamma and tetragamma functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3391-3407. doi: 10.3934/math.2020219 |
[2] | Wissem Jedidi, Hristo S. Sendov, Shen Shan . Classes of completely monotone and Bernstein functions defined by convexity properties of their spectral measures. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11372-11395. doi: 10.3934/math.2024558 |
[3] | Khaled Mehrez, Abdulaziz Alenazi . Bounds for certain function related to the incomplete Fox-Wright function. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19070-19088. doi: 10.3934/math.2024929 |
[4] | Fei Wang, Bai-Ni Guo, Feng Qi . Monotonicity and inequalities related to complete elliptic integrals of the second kind. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2732-2742. doi: 10.3934/math.2020176 |
[5] | Xifeng Wang, Senlin Guo . Some conditions for sequences to be minimal completely monotonic. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 9832-9839. doi: 10.3934/math.2023496 |
[6] | Xi-Fan Huang, Miao-Kun Wang, Hao Shao, Yi-Fan Zhao, Yu-Ming Chu . Monotonicity properties and bounds for the complete p-elliptic integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 7071-7086. doi: 10.3934/math.2020453 |
[7] | Li Xu, Lu Chen, Ti-Ren Huang . Monotonicity, convexity and inequalities involving zero-balanced Gaussian hypergeometric function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12471-12482. doi: 10.3934/math.2022692 |
[8] | Chuan-Yu Cai, Qiu-Ying Zhang, Ti-Ren Huang . Properties of generalized (p,q)-elliptic integrals and generalized (p,q)-Hersch-Pfluger distortion function. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 31198-31216. doi: 10.3934/math.20231597 |
[9] | Fei Wang, Bai-Ni Guo, Feng Qi . Correction: Monotonicity and inequalities related to complete elliptic integrals of the second kind. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5683-5684. doi: 10.3934/math.2020363 |
[10] | Moquddsa Zahra, Dina Abuzaid, Ghulam Farid, Kamsing Nonlaopon . On Hadamard inequalities for refined convex functions via strictly monotone functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(11): 20043-20057. doi: 10.3934/math.20221096 |
The North Alpine foreland basin (NAFB) in Germany is characterized by various types of sedimentologic features that make it an excellent terrestrial analog of regions affected by high-energy asteroid impact-quakes on Mars. Impact events have shaped all planetary bodies in the inner Solar System over the past >4 Gyr. The well-preserved Ries impact crater (Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria), formed around 14.8 Ma, has recently been linked to an earthquake-produced seismite horizon in Mid-Miocene NAFB sediments that exhibits typical dewatering structures and is associated with sand spikes, seismically produced pin-shaped pseudo-concretions. In this terrestrial setting, the sand spike tails systematically point away from the Ries crater. On its path across Gale Crater, the Mars rover Curiosity seems to have observed a similar seismite horizon in early Hesperian lacustrine deposits including clastic dikes, convolute bedding, and, likely, sand spikes. Their orientation suggests that the nearby Slagnos impact crater might be the seismic source for the formation of those seismites. The Ries impact–seismite deposits can be traced over a distance of more than 200 km from the source crater (northern Switzerland), which makes the NAFB an excellent terrestrial analog for similar deposits and their sedimentologic inventory within Gale Crater's lake deposits on Mars.
It is well known that the convexity [1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,11,15,16,40,55,63,64], monotonicity [7,12,13,14,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53] and complete monotonicity [58,59,61,62] have widely applications in many branches of pure and applied mathematics [19,24,28,32,35,38,65]. In particular, many important inequalities [20,25,30,33,37,39,69] can be discovered by use of the convexity, monotonicity and complete monotonicity. The concept of complete monotonicity can be traced back to 1920s [18]. Recently, the complete monotonicity has attracted the attention of many researchers [23,34,56,67] due to it has become an important tool to study geometric function theory [26,31,36], its definition can be simply stated as follows.
Definition 1.1. Let I⊆R be an interval. Then a real-valued function f:I↦R is said to be completely monotonic on I if f has derivatives of all orders on I and satisfies
(−1)nf(n)(x)≥0 | (1.1) |
for all x∈I and n=0,1,2,⋯.
If I=(0,∞), then a necessary and sufficient condition for the complete monotonicity can be found in the literature [54]: the real-valued function f:(0,∞)↦R is completely monotonic on (0,∞) if and only if
f(x)=∫∞0e−xtdα(t) | (1.2) |
is a Laplace transform, where α(t) is non-decreasing and such that the integral of (1.2) converges for 0<x<∞.
In 1997, Alzer [10] studied a class of completely monotonic functions involving the classical Euler gamma function [21,22,60,66,68] and obtained the following result.
Theorem 1.1. Let n≥0 be an integer, κ(x) and fn(x) be defined on (0,∞) by
κ(x)=lnΓ(x)−(x−12)lnx+x−12ln(2π) | (1.3) |
and
fn(x)={κ(x)−n∑k=1B2k2k(2k−1)x2k−1,n≥1,κ(x),n=0, | (1.4) |
where Bn denotes the Bernoulli number. Then both the functions x↦f2n(x) and x↦−f2n+1(x) are strictly completely monotonic on (0,∞).
In 2009, Koumandos and Pedersen [27] first introduced the concept of completely monotonic functions of order r. In 2012, Guo and Qi [17] proposed the concept of completely monotonic degree of nonnegative functions on (0,∞). Since the completely monotonic degrees of many functions are integers, in this paper we introduce the concept of the completely monotonic integer degree as follows.
Definition 1.2. Let f(x) be a completely monotonic function on (0,∞) and denote f(∞)=limx→∞f(x). If there is a most non-negative integer k (≤∞) such that the function xk[f(x)−f(∞)] is completely monotonic on (0,∞), then k is called the completely monotonic integer degree of f(x) and denoted as degxcmi[f(x)]=k.
Recently, Qi and Liu [29] gave a number of conjectures about the completely monotonic degrees of these fairly broad classes of functions. Based on thirty six figures of the completely monotonic degrees, the following conjectures for the functions (−1)mR(m)n(x)=(−1)m[(−1)nfn(x)](m)=(−1)m+nf(m)n(x) are shown in [29]:
(ⅰ) If m=0, then
degxcmi[Rn(x)]={0,if n=01,if n=12(n−1),if n≥2; | (1.5) |
(ⅱ) If m=1, then
degxcmi[−R′n(x)]={1,if n=02,if n=12n−1,if n≥2; | (1.6) |
(ⅲ) If m≥1, then
degxcmi[(−1)mR(m)n(x)]={m−1,if n=0m,if n=1m+2(n−1),if n≥2. | (1.7) |
In this paper, we get the complete monotonicity of lower-order derivative and lower-scalar functions (−1)mR(m)n(x) and their completely monotonic integer degrees using the Definition 1.2 and a common sense in Laplace transform that the original function has the one-to-one correspondence with the image function, and demonstrated the correctness of the existing conjectures by using a elementary simple method. The negative conclusion to the second clause of (1.7) is given. Finally, we propose some operational conjectures which involve the completely monotonic integer degrees for the functions (−1)mR(m)n(x) for m=0,1,2,⋯.
In order to prove our main results, we need several lemmas and a corollary which we present in this section.
Lemma 2.1. If the function xnf(x) (n≥1) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), so is the function xn−1f(x).
Proof. Since the function 1/x is completely monotonic on (0,∞), we have xn−1f(x)=(1/x)[xnf(x)] is completely monotonic on (0,∞) too.
Corollary 2.1. Let α(t)≥0 be given in (1.2). Then the functions xi−1f(x) for i=n,n−1,⋯,2,1 are completely monotonic on (0,∞) if the function xnf(x) (n∈N) is completely monotonic on (0,∞).
The above Corollary 2.1 is a theoretical cornerstone to find the completely monotonic integer degree of a function f(x). According to this theory and Definition 1.2, we only need to find a nonnegative integer k such that xkf(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞) and xk+1f(x) is not, then degxcmi[f(x)]=k.
The following lemma comes from Yang [57]:
Lemma 2.2. Let fn(x) be defined as (1.4). Then fn(x) can be written as
fn(x)=14∫∞0pn(t2)e−xtdt, | (2.1) |
where
pn(t)=cothtt−n∑k=022kB2k(2k)!t2k−2. | (2.2) |
Lemma 2.3. Let m,r≥0, n≥1, fn(x) and pn(t) be defined as (2.1) and (2.2). Then
xr(−1)mR(m)n(x)=xr(−1)m+nf(m)n(x)=14∫∞0[(−1)ntmpn(t2)](r)e−xtdt. | (2.3) |
Proof. It follows from (2.1) that
x(−1)mR(m)n(x)=x(−1)m+nf(m)n(x)=x(−1)m+n14∫∞0(−t)mpn(t2)e−xtdt=x(−1)n14∫∞0tmpn(t2)e−xtdt=(−1)n−114∫∞0tmpn(t2)de−xt=(−1)n−114{[tmpn(t2)e−xt]∞t=0−∫∞0[tmpn(t2)]′e−xtdt}=(−1)n14∫∞0[tmpn(t2)]′e−xtdt. |
Repeat above process. Then we come to the conclusion that
xr(−1)mR(m)n(x)=(−1)n14∫∞0[tmpn(t2)](r)e−xtdt, |
which completes the proof of Lemma 2.3.
In recent paper [70] the reslut degxcmi[R1(x)]=degxcmi[−f1(x)]=1 was proved. In this section, we mainly discuss degxcmi[R2(x)] and degxcmi[R3(x)]. Then discuss whether the most general conclusion exists about degxcmi[Rn(x)].
Theorem 3.1. The function x3R2(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[R2(x)]=degxcmi[f2(x)]=2. |
Proof. Note that the function x2R2(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞) due to
x2R2(x)=14∫∞0p(2)2(t2)e−xtdt,p2(t)=cothtt+145t2−1t2−13,p′2(t)=245t−1tsinh2t+2t3−1t2coshtsinht,p′′2(t)=45A(t)+180t2B(t)+t4C(t)90t4sinh3t>0, |
where
A(t)=tcosh3t−3sinh3t+9sinht−tcosht=∞∑n=52(n−4)(32n−1)(2n+1)!t2n+1>0,B(t)=tcosht+sinht>0,C(t)=sinh3t−3sinht>0. |
So degxcmi[R2(x)]≥2.
On the other hand, we can prove that the function x3f2(x)=x3R2(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞). By (2.3) we have
x3f2(x)=14∫∞0p(3)2(t2)e−xtdt, |
then by (1.2), we can complete the staged argument since we can verify
p(3)2(t2)>0⟺p(3)2(t)>0 |
is not true for all t>0 due to
p′′′2(t)=2tsinh2t−2t3sinh2t+4t3+24t5−6tcosh2tsinh4t−4t3cosh2tsinh2t−2t2cosh3tsinh3t+2t2coshtsinht−4t2coshtsinh3t−6t4coshtsinht |
with p′′′2(10)=−0.00036⋯.
Theorem 3.2. The function x4R3(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[R3(x)]=degxcmi[−f3(x)]=4. |
Proof. By (2.3) we obtain that
x4R3(x)=∫∞0[−p(4)3(t2)]e−xtdt. |
From (2.2) we clearly see that
p3(t)=cothtt−1t2+145t2−2945t4−13, |
p(4)3(t)=:−1630H(t)t6sinh5t, |
or
−p(4)3(t)=1630H(t)t6sinh5t, |
where
H(t)=(2t6+4725)sinh5t−945tcosh5t−(1260t5+3780t3−2835t)cosh3t−(10t6+2520t4+3780t2+23625)sinh3t−(13860t5−3780t3+1890t)cosht+(20t6−7560t4+11340t2+47250)sinht:=∞∑n=5hn(2n+3)!t2n+3 |
with
hn=2125[64n6+96n5−80n4−120n3+16n2−2953101n+32484375]52n−1027[64n6+96n5+5968n4+105720n3+393136n2+400515n+1760535]32n+20[64n6+96n5−11168n4−9696n3+9592n2+13191n+7749]>0 |
for all n≥5. So x4R3(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), which implies degxcmi[R3(x)]≥4.
Then we shall prove x5R3(x)=−x5f3(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞). Since
x5R3(x)=∫∞0[−p(5)3(t2)]e−xtdt, |
and
−p(5)3(t)=14K(t)t7sinh6t, |
where
K(t)=540cosh4t−1350cosh2t−90cosh6t−240t2cosh2t+60t2cosh4t+80t4cosh2t+40t4cosh4t+208t6cosh2t+8t6cosh4t−120t3sinh2t+60t3sinh4t+200t5sinh2t+20t5sinh4t+75tsinh2t−60tsinh4t+15tsinh6t+180t2−120t4+264t6+900. |
We find K(5)≈−2.6315×1013<0, which means −p(5)3(5)<0. So the function x5R3(x)=−x5f3(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞).
In a word, degxcmi[R3(x)]=degxcmi[−f3(x)]=4.
Remark 3.1. So far, we have the results about the completely monotonic integer degrees of such functions, that is, degxcmi[R1(x)]=1 and degxcmi[Rn(x)]=2(n−1) for n=2,3, and find that the existing conclusions support the conjecture (1.5).
In this section, we shall calculate the completely monotonic degrees of the functions (−1)mR(m)n(x), where m=1 and 1≤n≤3.
Theorem 4.1 The function −x2R′1(x)=x2f′1(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[(−1)1R′1(x)]=2. |
Proof. By the integral representation (2.3) we obtain
x2f′1(x)=14∫∞0[−tp1(t2)]′′e−xtdt. |
So we complete the proof of result that x2f′1(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞) when proving
[−tp1(t2)]′′>0⟺[tp1(t2)]′′<0⟺[tp1(t)]′′<0. |
In fact,
tp1(t)=t(cothtt−1t2−13)=coshtsinht−13t−1t,[tp1(t)]′=1t2−cosh2tsinh2t+23,[tp1(t)]′′=2sinh3t[cosht−(sinhtt)3]<0. |
Then we have degxcmi[(−1)1R′1(x)]≥2.
Here −x3R′1(x)=x3f′1(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞). By (2.2) and (2.3) we have
x3f′1(x)=14∫∞0[−tp1(t2)]′′′e−xtdt, |
and
[−tp1(t)]′′′=23t4cosh2t−t4sinh2t−3sinh4tt4sinh4t |
with [−tp1(t)]′′′|t=2≈−3.6237×10−2<0.
Theorem 4.2. The function −x3R′2(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[−R′2(x)]=degxcmi[−f′2(x)]=3. |
Proof. First, we can prove that the function −x3R′2(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞). Using the integral representation (2.3) we obtain
−x3f′2(x)=14∫∞0[tp2(t2)](3)e−xtdt, |
and complete the proof of the staged argument when proving
[tp2(t2)](3)>0⟺[tp2(t)](3)>0. |
In fact,
p2(t)=cothtt+145t2−1t2−13,L(t):=tp2(t)=coshtsinht−13t−1t+145t3, |
L′′′(t)=−180cosh2t+45cosh4t−124t4cosh2t+t4cosh4t−237t4+13560t4sinh4t=160t4sinh4t[∞∑n=322n+2bn(2n+4)!t2n+4]>0, |
where
bn=22n(4n4+20n3+35n2+25n+2886)−4(775n+1085n2+620n3+124n4+366)>0 |
for all n≥3.
On the other hand, by (2.3) we obtain
x4(−1)1R′2(x)=−x4f′2(x)=14∫∞0[tp2(t2)](4)e−xtdt, |
and
L(4)(t)=[tp2(t)](4)=16coshtsinht−40cosh3tsinh3t+24cosh5tsinh5t−24t5 |
is not positive on (0,∞) due to L(4)(10)≈−2.3993×10−4<0, we have that −x4R′2(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞).
Theorem 4.3. The function −x5R′3(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[−R′3(x)]=degxcmi[f′3(x)]=5. |
Proof. We shall prove that −x5R′3(x)=x5f′3(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞) and −x6R′3(x)=x6f3(x) is not. By (2.2) and (2.3) we obtain
xrf′3(x)=14∫∞0[−tp3(t2)](r)e−xtdt, r≥0. |
and
p3(t)=cothtt−1t2+145t2−2945t4−13,M(t):=tp3(t)=coshtsinht−13t−1t+145t3−2945t5,M(5)(t)=−1252p(t)t6sinh6t, |
we have
[−M(t)](5)=1252p(t)t6sinh6t,[−M(t)](6)=14q(t)t7sinh7t, |
where
p(t)=−14175cosh2t+5670cosh4t−945cosh6t+13134t6cosh2t+492t6cosh4t+2t6cosh6t+16612t6+9450,q(t)=945sinh3t−315sinh5t+45sinh7t−1575sinht−456t7cosh3t−8t7cosh5t−2416t7cosht. |
Since
p(t)=∞∑n=42⋅62n+492⋅42n+13134⋅22n(2n)!t2n+6−∞∑n=4945⋅62n+6−5670⋅42n+6+14175⋅22n+6(2n+6)!t2n+6>0,q(0.1)≈−2.9625×10−5<0, |
we obtain the expected conclusions.
Remark 4.1. The experimental results show that the conjecture (1.6) may be true.
Theorem 5.1. The function x3R′′1(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[R′′1(x)]=degxcmi[−f′′1(x)]=3. | (5.1) |
Proof. By (2.2) and (2.3) we obtain
x3R′′1(x)=−x3f′′1(x)=14∫∞0[−t2p1(t2)]′′′e−xtdt, |
and
t2p1(t)=tcoshtsinht−13t2−1, |
[−t2p1(t)]′′′=23sinh4t[∞∑n=23(n−1)22n+1(2n+1)!t2n+1]>0. |
So x3R′′1(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞).
But x4R′′1(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞) due to
x4R′′1(x)=14∫∞0[−t2p1(t2)](4)e−xtdt, |
and
[−t2p1(t)](4)=1sinh5t(4sinh3t+12sinht−22tcosht−2tcosh3t) |
with [−t2p1(t)](4)|t=10≈−5.2766×10−7<0.
So
degxcmi[R′′1(x)]=degxcmi[−f′′1(x)]=3. |
Remark 5.1. Here, we actually give a negative answer to the second paragraph of conjecture (1.7).
Theorem 5.2. The function x4R′′2(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[R′′2(x)]=degxcmi[f′′2(x)]=4. |
Proof. By (2.2) and (2.3) we
x4f′′2(x)=14∫∞0[t2p2(t2)](4)e−xtdt, |
and
t2p2(t)=145t4−13t2+tcoshtsinht−1,[t2p2(t)](4)=130(−125sinh3t+sinh5t−350sinht+660tcosht+60tcosh3t)sinh5t=130sinh5t[∞∑n=35(52n+(24n−63)32n+264n+62)(2n+1)!t2n+1]>0. |
Since
x5f′′2(x)=14∫∞0[t2p2(t2)](5)e−xtdt, |
and
[t2p2(t)](5)=50sinh2t−66t+5sinh4t−52tcosh2t−2tcosh4tsinh6t |
with [t2p2(t)](5)|t=10≈−9.8935×10−7<0, we have that x5f′′2(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞). So
degxcmi[R′′2(x)]=4. |
Theorem 5.3. The function x6R′′3(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞), and
degxcmi[R′′3(x)]=degxcmi[−f′′3(x)]=6. |
Proof. By the integral representation (2.3) we obtain
−x6f′′3(x)=14∫∞0[−t2p3(t2)](6)e−xtdt,−x7f′′3(x)=14∫∞0[−t2p3(t2)](7)e−xtdt. |
It follows from (2.2) that
p3(t)=cothtt−1t2+145t2−2945t4−13,N(t):=t2p3(t)=145t4−13t2−2945t6+tcoshtsinht−1,−N(6)(t)=142r(t)sinh7t,−N(7)(t)=(2416t−1715sinh2t−392sinh4t−7sinh6t+2382tcosh2t+240tcosh4t+2tcosh6t)sinh8t, |
where
r(t)=6321sinh3t+245sinh5t+sinh7t+10045sinht−25368tcosht−4788tcosh3t−84tcosh5t=∞∑n=4cn(2n+1)!t2n+1 |
with
cn=7⋅72n−(168n−1141)52n−(9576n−14175)32n−(50736n+15323). |
Since ci>0 for i=4,5,6,7, and
cn+1−49cn=(4032n−31584)52n+(383040n−653184)32n+2435328n+684768>0 |
for all n≥8. So cn>0 for all n≥4. Then r(t)>0 and −N(6)(t)>0 for all t>0. So x6R′′3(x) is completely monotonic on (0,∞).
In view of −N(7)(1.5)≈−0.57982<0, we get x7R′′3(x) is not completely monotonic on (0,∞). The proof of this theorem is complete.
Remark 5.2. The experimental results show that the conjecture (1.7) may be true for n,m≥2.
In this way, the first two paragraphs for conjectures (1.5) and (1.6) have been confirmed, leaving the following conjectures to be confirmed:
degxcmi[Rn(x)]=2(n−1), n≥4; | (6.1) |
degxcmi[−R′n(x)]=2n−1, n≥4; | (6.2) |
and for m≥1,
degxcmi[(−1)mR(m)n(x)]={m,if n=0m+1,if n=1m+2(n−1),if n≥2, | (6.3) |
where the first formula and second formula in (6.3) are two new conjectures which are different from the original ones.
By the relationship (2.3) we propose the following operational conjectures.
Conjecture 6.1. Let n≥4, and pn(t) be defined as (2.2). Then
[(−1)npn(t)](2n−2)>0 | (6.4) |
holds for all t∈(0,∞) and
[(−1)npn(t)](2n−1)>0 | (6.5) |
is not true for all t∈(0,∞).
Conjecture 6.2. Let n≥4, and pn(t) be defined as (2.2). Then
(−1)n[tpn(t)](2n−1)>0 | (6.6) |
holds for all t∈(0,∞) and
(−1)n[tpn(t)](2n)>0 | (6.7) |
is not true for all t∈(0,∞).
Conjecture 6.3. Let m≥1, and pn(t) be defined as (2.2). Then
[tmp0(t)](m)>0, | (6.8) |
[−tmp1(t)](m+1)>0 | (6.9) |
hold for all t∈(0,∞), and
[tmp0(t)](m+1)>0, | (6.10) |
[−tmp1(t)](m+2)>0 | (6.11) |
are not true for all t∈(0,∞).
Conjecture 6.4. Let m≥1, n≥2, and pn(t) be defined as (2.2). Then
(−1)n[tmpn(t)](m+2n−2)>0 | (6.12) |
holds for all t∈(0,∞) and
(−1)n[tmpn(t)](m+2n−1)>0 | (6.13) |
is not true for all t∈(0,∞).
The author would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions, which led to considerable improvement of the article.
The research is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61772025).
The author declares no conflict of interest in this paper.
[1] |
Sach VJ, Buchner E, Schmieder M (2020) Enigmatic earthquake-generated large-scale clastic dyke in the Biberach area (SW Germany). Sediment Geol 398: 105571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2019.105571 doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2019.105571
![]() |
[2] |
Buchner E, Sach VJ, Schmieder M (2020) New discovery of two seismite horizons challenges the Ries–Steinheim double‑impact theory. Sci Rep 10: 22143. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-79032-4 doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79032-4
![]() |
[3] |
Stöffler D, Artemieva NA, Wünnemann K, et al. (2013) Ries crater and suevite revisited—Observations and modeling. Part Ⅰ: Observations. Meteorit Planet Sci 48: 515–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12086 doi: 10.1111/maps.12086
![]() |
[4] |
Artemieva NA, Wünnemann K, Krien F, et al. (2013) Ries crater and suevite revisited—Observations and modeling. Part Ⅱ: Modeling. Meteorit Planet Sci 48: 590–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/maps.12085 doi: 10.1111/maps.12085
![]() |
[5] |
Schmieder M, Kennedy T, Jourdan F, et al. (2018) A high-precision 40Ar/39Ar age for the Nördlinger Ries impact crater, Germany, and implications for the accurate dating of terrestrial impact events. Geochim Cosmochim Acta 220: 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2017.09.036 doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2017.09.036
![]() |
[6] |
Schmieder M, Kennedy T, Jourdan F (2018) Response to comment on "A high-precision 40Ar/39Ar age for the Nördlinger Ries impact crater, Germany, and implications for the accurate dating of terrestrial impact events" by Schmieder et al. (Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 220 (2018) 146–157). Geochim Cosmochim Acta 238: 602–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gca.2018.07.025 doi: 10.1016/j.gca.2018.07.025
![]() |
[7] | Sach VJ (1999) Litho- und biostratigraphische Untersuchungen in der Oberen Süßwassermolasse des Landkreises Biberach an der Riß (Oberschwaben). Stuttgarter Beitr Naturk B 276: 1–167. |
[8] | Sach VJ (2014) Strahlenkalke (Shatter-Cones) aus dem Brockhorizont der Oberen Süßwassermolasse in Oberschwaben (Südwestdeutschland)—Fernauswürflinge des Nördlinger-Ries-Impaktes, Pfeil Verlag, München, 1–17. |
[9] | Hofmann B, Hofmann F (1992) An impactite horizon in the upper freshwater molasse in Eastern Switzerland: Distal Ries ejecta. Eclogae Geol Helv 85: 788–789. |
[10] |
Letsch D (2017) Diamictites and soft sediment deformation related to the Ries (ca. 14.9 Ma) meteorite impact: the "Blockhorizont" of Bernhardzell (Eastern Switzerland). Int J Earth Sci 107: 1379–1380. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-017-1542-1 doi: 10.1007/s00531-017-1542-1
![]() |
[11] |
Holm-Alwmark S, Alwmark C, Ferrière L, et al. (2021) Shocked quartz in distal ejecta from the Ries impact event (Germany) found at ~ 180 km distance, near Bernhardzell, eastern Switzerland. Sci Rep 11: 7438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-86685-2 doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86685-2
![]() |
[12] |
Buchner E, Sach VJ, Schmieder M (2022) Event- and biostratigraphic evidence for two independent Ries and Steinheim asteroid impacts in the Middle Miocene. Sci Rep 12: 18603. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21409-8 doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-21409-8
![]() |
[13] |
Collins G, Melosh HJ, Marcus R (2005) Earth impact effects program: a web-based computer program for calculating the regional environmental consequences of a meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteorit Planet Sci 40: 817–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-5100.2005.tb00157.x doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2005.tb00157.x
![]() |
[14] |
Schmieder M, Sach VJ, Buchner E (2021) The Chöpfi pinnacles near Winterthur, Switzerland: Long-distance effects of the Ries impact-earthquake? Int J Earth Sci 111: 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00531-021-02082-0 doi: 10.1007/s00531-021-02082-0
![]() |
[15] |
Buchner E, Sach VJ, Schmieder M (2021) Sand spikes pinpoint powerful palaeoseismicity. Nat Commun 12: 6731. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27061-6 doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27061-6
![]() |
[16] |
Maurer H, Buchner E (2007) Rekonstruktion fluvialer Systeme der Oberen Süßwassermolasse im Nordalpinen Vorlandbecken SW-Deutschlands. German J Geosci (ZdGG) 158: 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1127/1860-1804/2007/0158-0249 doi: 10.1127/1860-1804/2007/0158-0249
![]() |
[17] | Heider J, Wegele A, Amstutz GC (1976) Beobachtungen über Sandrosen und Zapfensande aus der Süßwassermolasse Südwürttembergs. Der Aufschluß 27: 297–307. |
[18] | Sanborn WB (1976) Oddities of the Mineral World. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, NY, USA. 142. Available from: http://allanmccollum.net/amcimages/sanborn.html, (last accessed February 19, 2025). |
[19] |
Akçiz SO, Grant Ludwig L, Arrowsmith JR, et al. (2010) Century-long average time intervals between earthquake ruptures of the San Andreas fault in the Carrizo Plain, California. Geology 38: 787–790. https://doi.org/10.1130/G30995.1 doi: 10.1130/G30995.1
![]() |
[20] |
McBride EF, Picard MD, Folk RL (1994) Orientated Concretions, Ionian Coast, Italy: Evidence of Groundwater flow direction. J Sediment Res A64: 535–540. https://doi.org/10.1306/D4267DFC-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D doi: 10.1306/D4267DFC-2B26-11D7-8648000102C1865D
![]() |
[21] | McCullough LN, Ritter JB, Zaleha MJ, et al. (2003) Habit, formation, and implications of elongeate, calcite concretions, Victoria, Australia. Department of Geology, Wittenberg University, Ohio, USA. Published Senior Honors Thesis. 25. |
[22] | Grant JA, Wilson SA (2018) Possible Geomorphic and Crater Density Evidence for Late Aqueous Activity in Gale Crater. LPI Contrib. 49th Annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. |
[23] |
Metz J, Grotzinger J, Okubo C, et al. (2010) Thin‐skinned deformation of sedimentary rocks in Valles Marineris, Mars. J Geophys Res Planets 115: E11004. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JE003593 doi: 10.1029/2010JE003593
![]() |
[24] | NASA Mars Science Laboratory, Curiosity Rover, 2024. Available from: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/. |
[25] |
Wray JJ (2013) Gale Crater: The Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity rover landing site. Int J Astrobiol 12: 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1473550412000328 doi: 10.1017/S1473550412000328
![]() |
[26] |
Grotzinger JP, Sumner DY, Kah LC, et al. (2014) A habitable fluvio-lacustrine environment at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars. Science 343: 6169. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1242777 doi: 10.1126/science.1242777
![]() |
[27] |
Grotzinger JP, Gupta S, Malin MC, et al. (2015) Deposition, exhumation, and paleoclimate of an ancient lake deposit, Gale Crater, Mars. Science 350: 6257. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac7575 doi: 10.1126/science.aac7575
![]() |
[28] |
Buz J, Ehlmann BL, Pan L, et al. (2017) Mineralogy and stratigraphy of the Gale crater rim, wall, and floor units. J Geophys Res Planets 122: 1090–1118. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JE005163 doi: 10.1002/2016JE005163
![]() |
[29] |
Schwenzer SP, Abramov O, Allen CC, et al. (2012) Gale Crater: Formation and post-impact hydrous environments. Planet Space Sci 70: 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2012.05.014 doi: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.05.014
![]() |
[30] |
Montenat C, Barrier P, Ott d'Estevou P, et al. (2007) Seismites: An attempt at critical analysis and classification. Sediment Geol 196: 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sedgeo.2006.08.004 doi: 10.1016/j.sedgeo.2006.08.004
![]() |
[31] | Hargitai H, Levi T (2015) Clastic dikes, Encyclopedia of Planetary Landforms, Hargitai H and Kereszturi A, Eds., Encyclopedia of Planetary Landforms, Springer, NY, USA. |
[32] |
Sleep NH, Olds EP (2018) Remote faulting triggered by strong seismic waves from the Cretaceous-Paleogene asteroid impact. Seismol Res Lett 89: 570–576. https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170223 doi: 10.1785/0220170223
![]() |
[33] |
DePalma RA, Smit J, Burnham DA, et al. (2019) A seismically induced onshore surge deposit at the K-Pg. boundary, North Dakota. PNAS 116: 8190–8199. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817407116 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1817407116
![]() |
[34] |
Vaniman DT, Bish DL, Ming DW, et al. (2014) Mineralogy of a mudstone at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars. Science 343: 6169. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1243480 doi: 10.1126/science.1243480
![]() |
[35] |
Ehlmann BL, Buz J (2015) Mineralogy and fluvial history of the watersheds of Gale, Knobel, and Sharp craters: A regional context for MSL Curiosity's exploration. Geophys Res Lett 42: 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062553 doi: 10.1002/2014GL062553
![]() |
[36] |
Carter J, Viviano-Beck C, Loizeau D, et al. (2015) Orbital detection and implications of akaganéite on Mars. Icarus 253: 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.020 doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.01.020
![]() |
[37] |
Tohver E, Schmieder M, Lana C, et al. (2018) End-Permian impactogenic earthquake and tsunami deposits in the intracratonic Paraná Basin of Brazil. GSA Bull 130: 1099–1120. https://doi.org/10.1130/B31626.1 doi: 10.1130/B31626.1
![]() |
[38] |
Weatherley DK, Henley RW (2013) Flash vaporization during earthquakes evidenced by gold deposits. Nature Geosci 6: 294–298. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1759 doi: 10.1038/ngeo1759
![]() |
[39] |
Simms JM (2003) Uniquely extensive seismite from the latest Triassic of the United Kingdom: evidence for bolide impact? Geology 31: 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0557:UESFTL>2.0.CO;2 doi: 10.1130/0091-7613(2003)031<0557:UESFTL>2.0.CO;2
![]() |
[40] |
Banham SG, Gupta S, Rubin DM, et al. (2018) Ancient Martian aeolian processes and palaeomorphology reconstructed from the Stimson formation on the lower slope of Aeolis Mons, Gale crater, Mars. Sedimentology 65: 993–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/sed.12469 doi: 10.1111/sed.12469
![]() |
[41] |
Bohacs KM, Carrol AR, Neal JE (2003) Lessons from large lake systems—Thresholds, nonlinearity, and strange attractors. Special Papers-Geological Society of America, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1130/0-8137-2370-1.75 doi: 10.1130/0-8137-2370-1.75
![]() |
[42] |
Brož P, Oehler D, Mazzini A, et al. (2023) An overview of sedimentary volcanism on Mars. Earth Surf Dynam 11: 633–661. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1458 doi: 10.5194/egusphere-2022-1458
![]() |
[43] |
Sturm S, Wulf G, Jung D, et al. (2013) The Ries impact, a double-layer rampart crater on Earth. Geology 41: 531–534. https://doi.org/10.1130/G33934.1 doi: 10.1130/G33934.1
![]() |
[44] |
Wilson SA, Morgan AM, Howard AD, et al. (2021) The global distribution of craters with alluvial fans and deltas on Mars. Geophys Res Lett 48: e2020GL091653. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091653 doi: 10.1029/2020GL091653
![]() |
[45] |
Grotzinger JP, Crisp J, Vasavada AR, et al. (2012) Mars Science Laboratory mission and science investigation. Space Sci Rev 170: 5–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-012-9892-2 doi: 10.1007/s11214-012-9892-2
![]() |
1. | Feng Qi, Decreasing properties of two ratios defined by three and four polygamma functions, 2022, 360, 1778-3569, 89, 10.5802/crmath.296 | |
2. | Zhong-Xuan Mao, Jing-Feng Tian, Delta Complete Monotonicity and Completely Monotonic Degree on Time Scales, 2023, 46, 0126-6705, 10.1007/s40840-023-01533-y | |
3. | Hesham Moustafa, Waad Al Sayed, Some New Bounds for Bateman’s G-Function in Terms of the Digamma Function, 2025, 17, 2073-8994, 563, 10.3390/sym17040563 |