Prove Injectivity of x^x Function?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Izzhov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Injective
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the injectivity of the function f(x) = x^x, particularly within the context of real numbers. Participants explore various approaches to determine whether the function is one-to-one, examining its behavior across different intervals and considering both positive and negative values.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that proving the injectivity of f(x) = x^x could be approached by analyzing its inverse, though the inverse is non-algebraic.
  • There is a focus on the interval x > 0, with some noting that the function is discontinuous for x ≤ 0.
  • One participant claims that f(x) is not injective, providing a counterexample with f(1/4) = f(1/2).
  • Another participant argues that values between 1/e^1/e and 1 are also not injective, although this remains unproven.
  • Several participants discuss the monotonicity of the function, particularly on the intervals [0, 1/e] and [1/e, 1], suggesting that proving monotonicity is essential for establishing injectivity.
  • There is a mention of Rolle's theorem and the implications of having a maximum or minimum point affecting injectivity.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the function's behavior in specific intervals, questioning whether it is strictly decreasing or increasing.
  • There is a discussion about the classification of the function x^x, with some suggesting it is transcendental but not exponential.
  • One participant asserts that the function is injective on negative integers, while another agrees that it is injective on positive integers, citing the strictly increasing nature of n^n.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the injectivity of f(x) = x^x across all real numbers. While some argue it is not injective on positive reals, others propose it may be injective on negative integers and positive integers. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall injectivity of the function.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the behavior of the function in specific intervals and the unresolved nature of monotonicity in certain ranges. The discussion also highlights the complexity of proving injectivity without definitive conclusions.

  • #31
mathwonk,this is strange to me ,but if that's really definition you're right (thank you!).
composition of standard elementary functions x,e^x,and ln(x) creates xx.Indeed,I thought elementary functions were those obtainable from standard elementary functions only by means of finite number of arithmetical operations (+,-,*,:) among them.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
tehno said:
mathwonk,this is strange to me ,but if that's really definition you're right (thank you!).
composition of standard elementary functions x,e^x,and ln(x) creates xx.Indeed,I thought elementary functions were those obtainable from standard elementary functions only by means of finite number of arithmetical operations (+,-,*,:) among them.


throw in composition and you are there.

i.e. ln(ln(x)) is also elementary.

I guess the definition was made this way to try to encompass functions we usually try to antidifferentiate, like x^2 e^(x^3).


by the way in omitting trig functions, i was tacitly assuming the functions are complex valued, so that trig functions and their inverses are a special case of exponentials and logs.

e.g. arctan is the same as log except it twirls around i and -i instead of 0 and infinity. so if you compose with an automorphism like (1-i)/(1+i) they become almost the same.


to see this, just think of log as path integral of 1/z along paths that avoid 0 and infinity, and arctan as path integral of 1/(1+z^2) along paths that avoid i and -i.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
You pro-mathematicians certainly know *all rules * of your game.And We computer scientists must obey it without objections :smile:.
Maybe,I'll be hang for telling you this but most of us consider only
polynomials over Q-field truly elementary functions :wink:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K