Proving that x=2^x can't happen for real x?

  • Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the problem of proving that x=2^x cannot happen for real x without series expansion. The participants mention various approaches, such as analyzing the slopes of the functions, taking derivatives, and finding the largest value of "a" for which the equation a^x = x has a real solution. They eventually come to the conclusion that there is no solution, with one participant retracting their solution and another suggesting the problem as an exercise for introductory calculus.
  • #1
Dragonfall
1,030
4
Is there a simple way of proving that x=2^x can't happen for real x? Without series expansion.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2


Sure!

1. Note that if there were a solution, x cannot be negative, since the right-hand side is positve.

2. Note that at x=0, we have 2^x=1.

3. In order for "x" then, to become equal, (or greater) to 2^x, the slope of the function f(x)=x must be greater than the slope of the function g(x)=2^x prior to the x that makes f=g

4. Now, the slope of f is equal to 1, for g, it equals 2^xln(2)>0

5. Now, we see that g is strictly increasing.
IF the graph of f is to intersect somewhere with the graph of g, then the point at which g has equal slope as f must either be a point of intersection, OR IN A REGION IN WHICH f is greater than g!
(Since the graph of g will eventually undertake the graph of f, and if the point where g's slope is equal to f's slope is prior to f's intersection with g, then f will NEVER intersect with g)

6. Thus, we find that when g's slope equals f's slope, this happens at X=ln(1/ln(2))

7. At that point, we have f(X)=ln(1/ln(2)), whereas g(X)=(1/ln(2))^ln(2)

8 Since g(X)>f(X) we may conclude that g is always greater than f.
 
  • #3


Much simpler is to write 2^x - x = 0, and take the derivative of LHS: ln(2)2^x - 1. On [0, ∞), this is clearly strictly positive, so the function 2^x - x is strictly increasing on that interval. At x = 0, 2^x - x = 1, so it never attains 0 on [0, ∞) (it only gets larger than 1). It also can never attain 0 on (-∞, 0), so there is no solution.
 
  • #4


Werg22 said:
Much simpler is to write 2^x - x = 0, and take the derivative of LHS: ln(2)2^x - 1. On [0, ∞), this is clearly strictly positive,
Most definitely not!

At x=0, for example, ln(2)-1 is negative. :smile:
 
  • #5


Ah, then I retract my solution.
 
  • #6


Ah, thanks for the replies!
 
  • #7


This question could be turned into a nice little exercise for introductory calculus.

Q. Find the largest value of "a" for which the equation, [itex]a^x = x[/itex] has a real solution? It has a fairly cute solution.

a = e^(1/e), with the solution occurring at x = e.
 

1. Can x ever equal 2^x?

No, it is impossible for x to equal 2^x for real values of x.

2. How do we prove that x=2^x can't happen?

We can use mathematical proof techniques, such as contradiction or induction, to show that x cannot equal 2^x for real x values.

3. What is the significance of this equation?

The equation x=2^x has no real solutions, which means that there is no value of x that can satisfy the equation. This has implications in various mathematical and scientific fields.

4. Are there any exceptions to this equation?

No, there are no exceptions to the fact that x cannot equal 2^x for real values of x. This has been proven for all possible cases.

5. Is there a real world application for proving that x=2^x can't happen?

Yes, this equation has applications in fields such as economics, physics, and computer science. For example, it is used in determining the optimal interest rates for loans and investments.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
852
Replies
1
Views
904
Replies
1
Views
703
Replies
3
Views
703
  • General Math
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
926
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
715
  • General Math
Replies
5
Views
886
  • General Math
Replies
2
Views
822
Replies
2
Views
246
Back
Top