Analyses with Powers and Transcendentals
Problem Introduction
Which is greater, or ? Computing with straightfoward arithmetic, we have that . But is there another way to look at the problem?
Notice that . Substituting for , we get . To generalize the question further, we replace with a natural number , asking ourselves “under what condition does hold?”
Quick Observation
Consider the set . Computing the left and right expressions of the inequality for each , we have
0 | 0 | 1 |
1 | 1 | 2 |
2 | 8 | 9 |
3 | 81 | 64 |
4 | 1,024 | 625 |
5 | 15,625 | 7,776 |
6 | 279,936 | 117,649 |
7 | 5,764,801 | 2,097,152 |
8 | 134,217,728 | 43,046,721 |
9 | 3,486,784,401 | 1,000,000,000 |
Observe that such that , . Now observe that such that , . Next, we perform similar observations for the set of all nonnegative real numbers.
Analysis with e
We prove that for any real number by finding the stricter condition that for any real number .
Suppose . Dividing on both sides of the inequality, we get
Let be given by . Note that . To prove that is the least upper bound of , we show that always increases when . We use the following method borrowed from an online thread:1
It is sufficient to show that is increasing. Let . Substituting in , the expression can be rewritten as
Now we show that as decreases, (1) increases. Notice that is strictly positive when , so is concave for . Also notice that (1) is the slope of the line through and . Since any concave function has the property that the slope of the line (1) increases as decreases, always increases for .
Since converges to and always increases for , we have that is the least upper bound of . Since is the least upper bound of , then for any such that , we have that . Since this inequality is equivalent to for , we get
Analysis with Newton’s Method
Let and . Note that and are polynomials, so and are continuous. We prove a stronger result by finding the only point of intersection of and in the nonnegative reals.
Consider the interval (0, e). From the sections above, we know that the inequality between and flips when going from to . Since and are continuous, then with the Intermediate Value Theorem (IVT), we have that for some , .
To find , we evaluate the expression , which is given by . Unfortunately, there seems to be no straightforward way to apply the Lambert W function.2 Instead, we consider the interval Newton’s method, a modification of Newton’s method to find all intersections in a given interval.3 Applying this method on (0, e), we approximate a single intersection , which (as an aside) is curiously a transcendental number.4
Now we show that :
Suppose to reach a contradiction.
Consider the case . Since for , then must be an intersection in the interval . But from interval Newton’s method, we know there cannot be another intersection in .
Consider the case . Since for , then must be an intersection in the interval . From interval Newton’s method, we know there cannot be another intersection in . But by IVT, there must be another intersection in since and for some .
So by contradiction,
Moreover, for can be proved via similar “proof by cases” as above, which will be left as an exercise.
Footnotes
-
zhw. Answer to “How to prove (1 + 1/x)^x is increasing when x > 0?” https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/83035/how-to-prove-11-xx-is-increasing-when-x0 ↩
-
Miquilino, Alexandre Ribeiro. Answer to “How do you solve x^(x+1) = (x+1)^x?” https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-solve-x-x-1-x-1-x ↩
-
Seidl, Daniel. “Formalisation of Interval Methods for Nonlinear Root-Finding” https://www21.in.tum.de/students/past/interval_newton/assets/newton.pdf ↩
-
Lord, Nick. “86.16 Two Other Transcendental Numbers Obtained by (Mis)Calculating e.” The Mathematical Gazette, vol. 86, no. 505, 2002, pp. 103–05. https://doi.org/10.2307/3621590 ↩