Why is it difficult to integrate x^x

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter latyph
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrate
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The integration of the function x^x cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions, as confirmed by multiple contributors in the discussion. Tools like Mathematica fail to provide a solution in closed form, reinforcing the notion that no special functions exist for this integral. Participants suggested defining a new function to represent the antiderivative, denoted as F(x) = ∫_a^x t^t dt, but acknowledged that it cannot be simplified further. Numerical techniques can approximate definite integrals of x^x, but a general antiderivative remains elusive.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of calculus concepts, particularly integration and antiderivatives.
  • Familiarity with elementary functions and their properties.
  • Knowledge of numerical integration techniques.
  • Experience with mathematical software such as Mathematica for symbolic computation.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of special functions related to integration, such as the Liouville's Principle.
  • Explore numerical integration methods for approximating integrals of complex functions.
  • Learn about Taylor series expansions and their applications in integration.
  • Investigate the use of software tools for visualizing integrals and their approximations.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and anyone interested in advanced integration techniques and the limitations of elementary functions in calculus.

  • #91
Дьявол said:
Thanks for the correction everybody.

Here is my new solution.

If
<br /> x^x = e^{x\ln x}<br />
then

As a side for some reason I was thinking about a good series representation.

If I expand ln(x) first then one gets

x^x=\Pi_{n=0}^{\infty}exp \left( \frac{(-x)^n}{(n+1)!} \right)

Consider what happens now if you plug in \frac{(-x)^n}{(n+1)!} for the Taylor series of an exponential. And then multiply each of these terms together. If you are only interested in the first N terms of the Taylor series, then you only need to consider the first N terms in the product.

Also looking at the series, it kind of looks like the logarithm of x^x is \frac{1}{x}exp(-x)

but I think I must have made a mistake.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Guys, this thread was from 2005. Is this normal?
 
  • #93
Pinu7 said:
Only possible if we can define and inverse function of x^x(which will only work for x>0).

And then, I doubt the integral COULD be solved analytically. However, maybe it would be simpler to approximate?
Hallo Pinu7
It seems we are answering a question outdated. Do you matter?, I don't. Mathematical problems survived wars, so why not years? Ok how to integrate x^x?
You say you can inverse the function for x>0. What will that be?
greetings Janm.
 
  • #94
Well the best I managed is an infinite series, which curiously when evaluated from 0 to 1 gives
[[math]]
1-\frac{1}{2^{2}}+\frac{1}{3^{3}}-\frac{1}{4^{4}}+...
[[math]]
I wrote x^x as e^xlnx and used the infinite series e^x. Integrating term by term and used l'Hospital's rule and recursive nature of the integrals to generate the sequence above. Checked using definite integral calculator
 
  • #96
  • #97
how integrate x^x^x ?my teacher ask me)what do you think about it?
 
Last edited:
  • #98
Alejandroman8 said:
how integrate x^x^x ?my teacher sak me)what do you think about it?

I think you're in for a lot of swearing and bloody knuckles. Since x^x is positive for all x > 0 then x^{(x^x)} is continuous for x > 0 and therefore Riemann integrable. But trying to find any sort of friendly resolution to it is a fool's errand.

Numeric approximation is your best hope since I think even power series will be intractable.

--Elucidus
 
  • #99
Alejandroman8 said:
how integrate x^x^x ?my teacher ask me)what do you think about it?

Let's not think about how to integrate, just think about the easy case, differentiation, you still wouldn't get nice results at all.

http://the-genius-group-from-uc-berkeley.googlegroups.com/web/Tetration%20Differentiation.pdf?gsc=JivL3wsAAABzdSJOyPIJbvk4ERCPyg5o
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #100
Basically, I say (cause and effect stuff/ quark stuff / physically imposside to divide stuff / blah b

going along with everything in nature can be defined as and affacting the reality as (itself is) ,,, call it single definable existence or basically the law of of cause and affect exists...: blah blah blah, no fractions or partial exitstance. (avoid s domain)

(according to the equation derivative guy, (tesla I like)... nueton (sp)...) slope!

der x to x is
is
(xtox - ((xex) - (xe1)to(xe1)) / 1

rise over run in a a non fraxctional (cause and effect world) tadah...

Take a microprossessors class in Electrical Engineering (learn machines do math etc... O'Mally Universiy of Fl... nothing better, I've seen) ...followed by a deep physicall class in statistics (math side, if it exists or maybe not (math dept, might kick your but in statistics) do stilll calll it "counting statistics? get into those sum equations/lin equations and don't get they are the same,
take a math department lin equations classes (at the same time)

that semester will be fun...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K