# Why is nobody answering my question [closed]

About a week ago I asked this question. I have edited the question several times and have started a bounty. So far it has received more views than any of my other questions, but it has only gotten a few comments and has no answers. I simply cannnot understand this.

What can I do to improve the post? Is my question unclear in its intent? Is it too detailed? Or is it just very difficult and only interesting to a few people?

• I don't know, but I can speculate. May be the potential answerers already gave everything they know when answering this and this or this, and have nothing more to add. Or, may be the development reached a point where meaningful additions would take too much space. Some of the answers to the earlier versions were already quite long. Jun 17, 2016 at 18:54
• You misunderstand: I am asking an entirely different question than in those other posts. Jun 17, 2016 at 19:34
• Let me be more specific: the 1st and 3rd posts are basically asking the same thing. The 2nd is just a reference request. In this post read the statements in block quotes; you should find that it is asking something more general than the previous posts Jun 17, 2016 at 23:23

For me it is very difficult to answer. I worked on that what I understood in the first read, also because I'm interested in this myself. Then I became aware, that I was misreading the question in some details (for instance, your formula for $t$ looked very familiar and I just used my procedures for experimenting, and found later, that your version $t= W(-\log(z))$ and my version as well as the common formulae in the literature $t=-W(-\log(z))$ such that $z = \exp(t \cdot \exp (-t))$ and $t$ is the log of the fixpoint) differ simply by one sign - to find this reason for some strange errors has not been easy and needed much time) and all my computations and even carefully made pictures were actually unrelated from the focus of your question. I began with some arbitrary starting value of the iterations, where I realized only after some work, that always the wished orbit should include the complex numbers 0,1,z,.. - which is a very specific orbit. It is of course an interesting special case, but I remember that some articles I read recently just adressed the same problem working on the very orbit - so I was doubting whether I (or your question) might be overlooking some trivial or known thing. It would for instance have been helpful if that specifity of orbits had been pointed out explicitely - but well, that can well be considered as a problem of attention/precision of mine, which indeed is not so good as in the younger age ago.