f ( x ) = x x x ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
Let f ( x ) defined as the infinite power tower above, defined on the interval [ 1 , e 1 / e ] . Find the integer part of the derivative f ′ ( 2 ) .
Compare with this .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Another clear and elegant solution! Thanks! (+1)
Question: How do we know that f ( x ) is differentiable in the first place?
Log in to reply
I suppose we could note that the inverse function f − 1 ( x ) = x x 1 is continuous, increasing and one-to-one on [ 1 , e ] , and thus the given function must have the same charactersitics on [ 1 , e e 1 ] .
Log in to reply
yes, that's how I thought of it: g ( x ) = x 1 / x is differentiable for x > 0 and g ′ ( 2 ) = 0 . "Continuous, increasing and one-to-one" does not imply differentiability, of course.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – Yes, you're right. The function could have these attributes but also have corners and thus not be differentiable. (I think one could even construct such a function that is differentiable nowhere on the interval.) As you note, though, g ( x ) is indeed differentiable for x > 0 , with g ′ ( x ) = x x 1 − 2 ( 1 − ln ( x ) ) and g ′ ( 2 ) = 0 . 1 0 8 4 8 8 . . . = 0 .
Log in to reply
@Brian Charlesworth – I don't think there is an increasing function that is nowhere differentiable... if my memory serves me right, an increasing function is differentiable almost everywhere.
Log in to reply
@Otto Bretscher – O.k., that's right, (again). I had the Cantor function in my head as a counterexample, but once I reviewed its characteristics I found that it was differentiable (with zero derivative) almost everywhere. (It's also not strictly increasing, and hence not one-to-one.)
Are cobwebs required in this problem too ??.....:-)
Cobwebs are never required.... they are always optional. They are just a useful way to visualize results that can be obtained analytically.
Log in to reply
BTW how are you able to design such fresh and amazing problems...This question too was good and test's how a person can apply his equation solving as well as differentiation skills( Algebra + Calculus) .. I enjoyed this problem.. (+1) to the problem..
Log in to reply
These problems are not that fresh... my country man Euler was thinking about this stuff over 250 years ago. I noticed the error in that x x x . . . = 3 problem... that made me think about those power towers.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
This infinite tetration, or power tower , converges on the given interval and in fact achieves a maximum value of e at x = e e 1 , (see Dr. Bretscher's related question for a discussion on this matter). With confidence we can then write this equation as y = x y ⟹ ln ( y ) = y ln ( x ) , which we can differentiate implicitly to find that
y y ′ = y ′ ln ( x ) + x y ⟹ y ′ ( y 1 − ln ( x ) ) = x y ⟹ y ′ = x ( 1 − y ln ( x ) ) y 2 .
Now y = 2 y has, (on observation), solutions y = 2 and y = 4 , but as noted above the power tower achieves a maximum of only e , thus y ( 2 ) = 2 . Plugging x = 2 , y = 2 into the equation for y ′ yields that
f ′ ( 2 ) = 2 ( 1 − 2 ln ( 2 ) ) 2 2 = 2 ( 1 − ln ( 2 ) ) 4 = 1 − ln ( 2 ) 2 2 = 9 . 2 1 7 5 3 6 7 . . . ,
the integral part of which is 9 .