How can I prove this elegant equation I discovered using Wolfram Alpha?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter superadvanced
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Discovery Random
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers around the equation sum(1/n^n, n, 1, inf) = integral(1/x^x, x, 0, 1), discovered using Wolfram Alpha. Participants emphasize the complexity of proving this equation, noting the absence of a known anti-derivative for 1/x^x. References to external resources, such as a Wikipedia article and a document on the Sophomore's Dream Function, provide additional context and insights into the equation's derivation. The conversation highlights that while the equation appears elegant, its proof is non-trivial and requires a deeper understanding of mathematical concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of infinite series and integrals
  • Familiarity with Wolfram Alpha for mathematical exploration
  • Knowledge of anti-derivatives and their significance in calculus
  • Basic comprehension of the Sophomore's Dream Function
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the equation from the Wikipedia article
  • Explore the proof of the Sophomore's Dream Function on Wolfram MathWorld
  • Learn about the properties of the function 1/x^x and its applications
  • Investigate advanced techniques in proving identities involving infinite series and integrals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying calculus, and anyone interested in exploring complex mathematical proofs and identities.

superadvanced
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Playing around with Wolfram Alpha I discovered an elegant looking little equation. Judging by the decimal approximation of both sides, there seems to be an extremely high probability that it is true. A picture of the equation is attached but ill try to type it too:

sum(1/n^n,n,1,inf)=integral(1/x^x,x,0,1)

My question is does anyone know how to go about showing this? Wolfram doesn't have much to say about either side of the equation other than decimal approximations. Obviously there is no known anti-derivative for 1/x^x. Thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • New+Picture.jpg
    New+Picture.jpg
    1.9 KB · Views: 460
Physics news on Phys.org
You may wish to look at the "[URL Dream[/url] article in Wikipedia.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wow that's really simple. i feel stupid.
 
superadvanced said:
wow that's really simple. i feel stupid.

Why feel stupid? It's not an obvious result by any means. The derivation in the linked wikipedia article isn't trivial either. Straightforward if you know what to do, maybe, but not simple enough to feel stupid for not thinking of it.

You found something neat. Don't feel bad that you couldn't prove it. Maybe next time you find something neat you will be able to prove it (even if it is still the case that someone else has proved it previously).
 
Mute said:
Why feel stupid? It's not an obvious result by any means. The derivation in the linked wikipedia article isn't trivial either. Straightforward if you know what to do, maybe, but not simple enough to feel stupid for not thinking of it.

You found something neat. Don't feel bad that you couldn't prove it. Maybe next time you find something neat you will be able to prove it (even if it is still the case that someone else has proved it previously).

lol I don't understand the wiki proof but there was a much simpler proof I found when googling sophomore's dream. Its on wolfram math world.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K