How Can We Integrate x^x Effectively?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thebetapirate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integration
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration of the function \( x^x \). Participants explore various methods of integration, the existence of an elementary anti-derivative, and the complexities involved in proving whether such an anti-derivative exists.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the existence of an elementary anti-derivative for \( \int x^x \, dx \) and expresses frustration with the lack of aesthetically pleasing solutions.
  • Another participant questions whether there is any reason to believe that an elementary anti-derivative exists for this integral.
  • A follow-up post discusses the challenge of proving the non-existence of an elementary anti-derivative, mentioning a specific substitution that leads to a different integral form.
  • There is a clarification that the discussion is about the non-existence of an anti-derivative in terms of elementary functions, suggesting that the solution may involve special functions like gamma or zeta functions.
  • One participant expresses a desire to apply the limit definition of the integral to approach the problem, despite feeling it may be futile.
  • Another participant notes the complexity of determining whether an integral can be expressed in terms of elementary functions, mentioning the Risch algorithm as a potential tool, though they admit limited knowledge about it.
  • There is a discussion about the definition of "elementary" integrals, with one participant seeking clarification on what constitutes an elementary integral.
  • A later post elaborates that an integral is considered "elementary" if its anti-derivative can be expressed as a finite sum or product of elementary functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of an elementary anti-derivative for \( x^x \). While some suggest it may not exist in elementary form, others propose that it could involve special functions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the definitive nature of the anti-derivative.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexities involved in proving the non-existence of an elementary anti-derivative and the reliance on definitions of elementary functions. There are references to mathematical tools and concepts that may not be fully explored within the thread.

thebetapirate
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
[tex]\int x^{x}{d}x\x[/tex]

What is it?

I have tried integration by parts and substitutions of various kinds and have arrived at certain solutions but none that look pretty.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My standard question for posts like this: Do you have any reason to think it has an elementary anti-derivative? ("Pretty" or not!)
 
Then my follow-up question is this: if no anti-derivative exists, how do you prove that?

I've been working with [tex]\int e^{u}e^{ue^{u}}du[/tex] the derivation of which becomes apparent after the substitution of [tex]\ x=e^{u}[/tex].
 
Last edited:
thebetapirate said:
Then my follow-up question is this: if no anti-derivative exists, how do you prove that?

I've been working with [tex]\int e^{u}e^{ue^{u}}du[/tex] the derivation of which becomes apparent after the substitution of [tex]\ x=e^{u}[/tex].

Well, Halls is not saying that there is no antiderivative at all, it is just that the antiderivative will not be in terms of elementary functions. In other words, the antiderivative will probbably include a gamma, zeta, gauss etc function in it!
 
Argh, so when I wrote anti-derivative in my response post I actually meant anti-derivative in terms of elementary functions. Again, how would that be proven?
 
I'm tempted to try applying the limit deffinition of the integral.
 
Okay maybe it's futile but I'll start it anyway.

[tex]\int_{0}^{x}x^xdx=\mathop {\lim }\limits_{N \to \infty } \sum_{n=1}^{N \ x}(n/N)^{n/N}[/tex]

Okay, wikipedia is going slow so I'll see if I can get further tomorrow.
 
Determining weather or not an integral is expressible in terms of elementary functions without actually calculating the integral is somewhat complex. The Risch algorithm is sometimes used, but I don't know too much about it.
 
  • #11
Calling an integral elementary means it can be integrated by simple basic methods? like int e^x=e^x

Sorry not a native speaker.:redface:
 
  • #12
Well, not exactly. Calling an integral "elementary" is a matter of opinion, but for an integral to be expressible in terms of elementary functions means that the anti-derivative is composed of a finite sum/product of elementary (basically the simple functions we learn about in high school and undergrad courses) functions. A proper list can be found on Wikipedia. There are many integrals that can be solved in terms of elementary functions that are still quite hard to do lol.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K