Can x^x Be Integrated with Elementary Functions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RandomMystery
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of the function x^x and whether it can be expressed in terms of elementary functions. Participants explore various mathematical approaches, limits, and summations related to this function, examining the implications of their findings.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose evaluating the limit of a sum involving (kh)^h as N approaches infinity and h approaches 0.
  • Others suggest that the limit of (kh)^h approaches 1 for k > 0, but note that k = 0 is an exception.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the correctness of their calculations and the implications of their findings regarding the average value of the function.
  • There is a suggestion that the integral of x^x cannot be performed in terms of elementary functions, referencing the relationship between the sum and the integral.
  • One participant introduces a new function or constant to explore the limits further, indicating a potential avenue for investigation.
  • Another participant mentions theorems, such as Liouville's Theorem and the Risch algorithm, which suggest that certain functions, including x^x, cannot be integrated using elementary functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the integration of x^x, with some believing it cannot be expressed in elementary terms while others explore various mathematical manipulations without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge limitations in their understanding and calculations, particularly regarding the independence of the limits and the nature of the function x^x.

RandomMystery
Messages
69
Reaction score
0
[tex]\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} \lim_{h\rightarrow 0} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N((kh)^h)^k=[/tex]

and
Nh=L
h = L/N
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi RandomMystery! :smile:

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(kh)^{hk}}}}=\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{\left(\lim_{h \rightarrow 0}{(kh)^h}\right)^k}}[/tex]

So, the first thing you need to do is evaluate

[tex]\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{(kh)^h}[/tex]
 
It seems to go toward 1
 
Except if k=0, of course. So that leaves us with

[tex]\lim_{N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N{1}}[/tex]

So, can you evaluate this?
 
[tex]\lim_{N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^L{1^k}}=1[/tex]

L=Nh (it doesn't let me put two characters on top of the sigma)

It's 1^k right? nvm it always equals 1.
Oh, I think that what I meant was from k=1 or 0 to k=Nh not N on the sigma sign.

So, is what I wrote above right? It can't be right though.

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(kh)^{hk}}}}=\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{\left(\lim_{h \rightarrow 0}{(kh)^h}\right)^k}}= \frac{\int_0^{L}{x^x}dx}{L}[/tex]

Nh=L

I know that the average value of that function can not be 1 all the time.

I don't know how to prove this though (I just learned series yesterday remember).

Maybe this will fix it...

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(kh)^{hk}}}}=\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(\frac{L}{N}k)^{(\frac{Lk}{N})}}}= \frac{\int_0^{L}{x^x}dx}{L}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
micromass said:
Hi RandomMystery! :smile:

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(kh)^{hk}}}}=\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{\left(\lim_{h \rightarrow 0}{(kh)^h}\right)^k}}[/tex]

So, the first thing you need to do is evaluate

[tex]\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{(kh)^h}[/tex]

The N and h limits are not independent. As stated in the first post, Nh = L = const. The limits cannot be performed separately.

RandomMystery said:
[tex]\lim_{N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^L{1^k}}=1[/tex]

L=Nh (it doesn't let me put two characters on top of the sigma)

It's 1^k right? nvm it always equals 1.
Oh, I think that what I meant was from k=1 or 0 to k=Nh not N on the sigma sign.

So, is what I wrote above right? It can't be right though.

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(kh)^{hk}}}}=\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{\left(\lim_{h \rightarrow 0}{(kh)^h}\right)^k}}= \frac{\int_0^{L}{x^x}dx}{L}[/tex]

Nh=L

I know that the average value of that function can not be 1 all the time.

I don't know how to prove this though (I just learned series yesterday remember).

Maybe this will fix it...

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(kh)^{hk}}}}=\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(\frac{L}{N}k)^{(\frac{Lk}{N})}}}= \frac{\int_0^{L}{x^x}dx}{L}[/tex]

The sum should indeed give you that integral. The integral cannot be performed in terms of elementary functions, so the sum similarly can't be done in closed form.
 
DArN iT!
I thought I had found a way around it though.
Have you at least tried it this way?

I have another hunch:

15f5460b0d41750d9f3f23f47e0ba5fd.png


and look!
[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(\frac{L}{N}k)^{(\frac{Lk}{N})}}}[/tex]

Which is so close to:

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow +\infty}{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=0}^N{(1+\frac{L}{N}k)^{(\frac{Lk}{N})}}}[/tex]

Maybe we need to define some new function/constant?

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow \infty}(\frac{L}{N}k)^\frac{Lk}{N}=[/tex] "f" or "e II"
 
Last edited:
RandomMystery said:
Maybe we need to define some new function/constant?

[tex]\lim_ {N\rightarrow \infty}(\frac{L}{N}k)^\frac{Lk}{N}=[/tex] "f" or "e II"

That limit is equivalent to [itex]\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} x^x[/itex], which is 1.

I don't mean to try and stomp on your enthusiasm or creativity, but you should know that there are theorems that show that certain functions, such as x^x, cannot be integrated in terms of elementary functions. See, for example, Liouville's Theorem (differential algebra) and the Risch algorithm. How exactly one shows this I don't know; I haven't really studied these theorems, I am merely aware of their existence.

So, keep playing around with math like this - you likely won't be discovering a closed form integral for x^x in terms of finitely many elementary functions, but maybe you'll discover something else that's cool.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K