Roots (x,y) of the equations of the type xy=yx=k,k>1
Here I want to share a numerical method of approximating the roots of the equation xy = yx = k, where k is a real number, k>1.
Interestingly I came upon it while playing with a scientific calculator two years ago, and later on I proved the algorithm, and wrote the code for it. I discovered this entirely by accident, I had not even wanted to do this. I just saw something and realized that 'this' might work for something like 'this'. To know what the two 'this' refer to, read ahead.
Here is my claim.
We define a sequence ai such that ai=k1/ai−1 , and a1=k1/m where m is any positive real number. Now we go on evaluating the terms of the sequence. Let us take the odd numbered terms to be a sub-sequence M, and the even numbered terms to be a sub-sequence T. Then my claim is that,
The sub-sequence M is convergent, and so is the sub-sequence T and if their limits are z and g respectively, then (z,g) and (g,z) are solutions to our equation.
And here goes the proof:
P = a1 = k1/m, and bj+1 = k1/bj−1 for all j in N ( N is the set of all natural numbers.) and m is any positive real number. (domain of m is (0,∞) )
Let us take the two sub-sequences { a1 , a3, a5 …… } and { a2, a4, a6, ….. } that is the sub-sequences formed by the odd numbered terms and that formed by the even numbered terms respectively.
Let the sequence formed by the odd numbered terms be M and the sequence formed by the even numbered terms be T.
Now we express an+2 in terms of an . By definition,
an+2 = k1/an+1 =k1/k1/an__ (1)
Our first observation is that the two sub-sequences that I have considered are both bounded below by 0 and above by k itself.
The lower bound is easy to observe because we know that the exponential function ax is positive for all real x and positive a. And our sequence is of the exponential form only. So 0 is indeed a lower bound.
Now we can establish the validity of k as an upper bound by the method of contradiction.
Let us assume that the sequence P contains a number which is greater than k itself. i.e. ah = v>k for some h in N.
But ah = k1/ah−1 = v necessary implies that ah−1 is less than 1 and greater than 0 i.e. 1/ah−1 is greater than 1, and k1/ah−1 is greater than k. All this holds if ah−1 is less than 1. But again
ah−1 = k1/ah−2 . Now if we take logarithm to the base k on both sides ,
then on L.H.S. we get something negative as ah−1 belongs to (0,1) by assumption and k is greater than 1 (domain of k is (1,∞) ) but on R.H.S we have 1/ah−2 which is positive because ah−2 is positive as the lower bound of the sequence {a1, a2, a3, ….} is 0. Thus a negative number on the L.H.S is equal to a positive number on the R.H.S by assumption that ah>k for some natural number h.
So we have a direct contradiction if ah>k for some natural number h, therefore this assumption must be false. So the negation of this statement must be true. That is ‘ah<k for all natural numbers h.’ So we have established that k itself is an upper bound.
Our second aim is to prove that these two sub-sequences are monotonic.
Let us consider the sub-sequence M={ a1, a3, a5, .......} and we take M1 = a1 , M2 = a3, M3 = a5, and in general Mk = a2k−1 for all k in N.
We know by order property (Law of Trichotomy) ‘Given two reals a and b, either a=b, or a>b, or a<b.’ Here we observe that Mn is not equal to Mn+1 for any natural number n, because of the relation between two consecutive terms of the sequence { a1, a3, a5, …. } derived in (1) above.
So M1>M2 or M2>M1:
Case I:
M1>M2 i.e. a1>a3 . Next we proceed by the principle of mathematical induction to show that Mn>Mn+1 for all natural numbers n. In fact we have already checked the first step for n=1.
Next we assume the validity of the statement to hold true for some n=k. i.e. Mk>Mk+1 or am>am+2 (where obviously m=2k−1
Now
Mk>Mk+1
am>am+2
1/am < 1/am+2 [reciprocating the positive numbers reverses the sign of inequality]
k1/am < k1/am+2
1/k1/am > 1/k1/am+2 [reciprocating the positive numbers reverses the sign of inequality]
k1/k1/am > k1/k1/am
am+2>am+4 (by the relation derived in (1) )
i.e.
Mk+1 > Mk+2
So we have M1 > M2 and Mk > Mk+1 implies Mk+1 > Mk+2 for all natural numbers k.
So M is a strictly decreasing monotone sequence.
Having established that we also see that M1 > M2 i.e. a1 > a3 implies that
1/a1 < 1/a3
k1/a1 < k1/a3
a2 < a4
Therefore a1>a3 implies that a2 < a4 . If we consider the sub-sequence T consisting of { a2, a4, a6, ….. } then we have a2 < a4 i.e. T1 < T2 . By a similar inductive argument as above we can see that
T is a strictly increasing monotone sequence.
It is to be noted that the conclusions drawn above are under the heading of [ Case I: ]
Case II:
M1 < M2 . Under this consideration we proceed exactly as in Case I: and prove that
M is a strictly increasing monotone sequence.
And on the same lines as in Case I: we have that
T is a strictly decreasing monotone sequence.
In both the cases which are mutually exhaustive we see that M and T are monotone sequences of the opposite nature, i.e. if one is increasing the other is decreasing.
Also M and T are sub-sequences of a sequence P which is bounded as a whole with 0 as a lower bound and k as an upper bound.
So M and T themselves are also bounded with 0 as a lower bound for both and k as an upper bound for both.
So from 1, 2 and 3 we see that M and T are both monotonic and bounded.
By the Monotone-Convergence theorem, ‘Any monotonic bounded sequence has a finite limit.’
Since the sequences M and T meet the requirements of the theorem, they are convergent and have a finite limit. Let the limit of Mn as n tends to ∞ be z and the limit of Tn as n tends to ∞ be g.
Now we note that as n tends to infinity the terms of the sequence P = { a1, a2, a3,….. } take the limiting values z and g alternatively because these are the limits of the odd numbered sub-sequence and the even numbered sub-sequence respectively which have alternate terms occurring in P.
That is as n tends to infinity the sequence P takes limiting values z and g alternately i.e. z, g, z, g, z, g, z, g, z, g, ……….. But we have defined the function as { an = k1/an−1 }. So as n tends to infinity we have successive values coming as z = k1/g and the next term as g = k1/z.
From the above two equations we get gz=k and zg=k. So we can say that (z,g) is a solution to the equation xy = yx = k.
Hence Proved.
When I was playing about with this, the first value I got this on was 3. So I have displayed the code for k=3 below. Interestingly for 3 the two convergence values z and g are so close by that they seem to be identical. As a result it also gives the result for xx=3. In fact it actually gives two different values which are very close by, hence it seems that they are equal.Interesting, huh?
For those interested here is the code in Python and the output with it. You are welcome to copy paste it and test it with your own values.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
print'This program has been written to verify the conjecture devised by me, and then prove it by the methods of calculus. In the following lines, you will be prompted for 3 numbers'print'The first number is \'a\' where we want to find the roots of the equation x^y=y^x=a, a>1.'print'The second number is \'m\' where we start with the mth root of a.'print'The third number is \'g\' where g is the number of iterations of the recursion we are calculating for approximating the limits of the two subsequences.'print'Please make sure g>100.'print'The two limits will be stored in p and q.'a=int(raw_input('a=:'))m=float(raw_input('m=:'))g=int(raw_input('g=:'))s=mforiinrange(g):s=a**(1.0/s)print'The',i+1,'th iteration yields ',sifi==g-2:p=sifi==g-1:q=s
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science
related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should
explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments
should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
@Agnishom Chattopadhyay
Thanks for pointing it out, I did not even notice. I have pasted the code for a wrong hypothesis here. I am modifying it immediately. This is the last code I have written. Do tell me if it is all right now.
P.S. Could you please tell me how to include code in replies and solutions? So far all I have done is to give ideone links. Because everytime I include code, the indentations don't come properly, till I have used a new line between every other line.
@Abhinav Raichur
As I said, I was playing with the calculator, precisely I was doing the following steps over and over again:
Type a number k. Then type the symbol ^.
Then type 1/m where m is any integer you like.
Then you get some result.
Then you type k again, followed by ^, and then press the button marked 'Ans' on your calculator.
Then go on pressing '=' again and again.
I just found this pressing of '=' repeatedly quite fun from my childhood.
Incidentally I found that this value stopped deviating after a while.
I tried it with more numbers.
In this way I got to this observation. Though at first I thought it would be the solution to xx=k because I was taking small values of k, the convergence values were very close. But as I went on taking larger values they alternated. I had to modify my observation. I only found a proof to this last year, and have discussed it with many important people before publishing it here.
P.S. I also have another observation of mine that I got by this same game of mine, pressing a particular button again and again on the calculator. But that observation was said to be wrong by a famous professor. I need to check it again, but it seems to work every time. That is material for another note.
That is great use of the calculator ... all I used to do is force the calculator to stack error :p .. +1 for patiently developing a rigorous proof .. and yes!, waiting for your next note :)
@Abhinav Raichur
–
just to share my experience, I used to press a lot of nested sines ( i.e. sin(sin(sin(...)) ) and the answer was always near to zero... till my tenth grade I would remember sine as the function that returned zero if you'd press it lot times .... then came trigonometry :)
@Abhinav Raichur
–
@Abhinav Raichur
Well then I would suggest you to proceed along those lines further, because the button I used to press repeatedly on my calculator for my other observation that I mentioned has something to do with Trigonometry. Go ahead with it.
@Abhinav Raichur
–
I too convinced myself by drawing graphs. I don't know what ergodic theory is, but I have seen a proof for the sin(sin(sin.... (x))))..)) and that of cos(cos(cos(.....(x)))...)) having the property that they both converge on repeated composition. However my function differs a little from these two in the fact that it uses multiple trigonometric functions and it's convergence value is also the value given by a trigonometric function.
@Abhinav Raichur
–
@Abhinav Raichur
Good to know. It will be some time before I can publish my next note because my board exams for the 12th are from March 1st, and I need to get decent marks in Chemistry and Physics. Also I need to consult some more before publishing that note. Meanwhile, Thanks for your support.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
@Soumava Pal I made a small change to fix the formatting. Can you check the code to see if there is something you want to edit out?
Log in to reply
@Agnishom Chattopadhyay Thanks for pointing it out, I did not even notice. I have pasted the code for a wrong hypothesis here. I am modifying it immediately. This is the last code I have written. Do tell me if it is all right now.
Log in to reply
Haha, glad that I could help. I did not notice anything wrong at first, either. I just wanted to fix the formatting (which I'll do again).
By the way, thanks for sharing your work. This is Brilliant. (Pun intended with genuine appreciation)
Log in to reply
P.S. Could you please tell me how to include code in replies and solutions? So far all I have done is to give ideone links. Because everytime I include code, the indentations don't come properly, till I have used a new line between every other line.
Log in to reply
Here is the full reference
Log in to reply
@Soumava Pal that is great! ... BTW how did you exactly get this idea?
Log in to reply
@Abhinav Raichur As I said, I was playing with the calculator, precisely I was doing the following steps over and over again:
In this way I got to this observation. Though at first I thought it would be the solution to xx=k because I was taking small values of k, the convergence values were very close. But as I went on taking larger values they alternated. I had to modify my observation. I only found a proof to this last year, and have discussed it with many important people before publishing it here.
Log in to reply
That is great use of the calculator ... all I used to do is force the calculator to stack error :p .. +1 for patiently developing a rigorous proof .. and yes!, waiting for your next note :)
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@Abhinav Raichur Well then I would suggest you to proceed along those lines further, because the button I used to press repeatedly on my calculator for my other observation that I mentioned has something to do with Trigonometry. Go ahead with it.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@Abhinav Raichur Good to know. It will be some time before I can publish my next note because my board exams for the 12th are from March 1st, and I need to get decent marks in Chemistry and Physics. Also I need to consult some more before publishing that note. Meanwhile, Thanks for your support.
Magnificent work!
Log in to reply
Thanks. XD
@Otto Bretscher Please help me out here.
This algorithm relies on the fact that x↦kkx−1$ is a contraction for k > 1
How do I show this (in an alternate way)?
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher