a to the b power

By -
Since I don't know and am too lazy to find out how to make this thing write small superscript numerals, I'm using "^" here for exponentiation, OK? Well, even if it's not OK, that's what I'll be using, OK? You wanna step outside?

2^4 = 16. 4^2 = 16 also! Not counting the trivial a = b, are there any other pairs of positive integers such that a^b = b^a? How many? Not counting the trivial a = b, how many pairs of positive real numbers are there with a^b = b^a (we've already found one)?

Here's part of the answer: for every pair of positive real numbers {p, 1/p}, p <> 1, there is a pair of positive real numbers {a, b} such that a^b = b^a, and the correspondence is biunique. If p yields the pair (a,b) , then 1/p yields (b,a). So the number of pairs {a, b} with this magic property is uncountably infinite, just like the positive reals that they match.

So what are they?

Comments

  1. John Goes12:17 PM

    Not sure if you know the answer or want it. Consider the growth of the function (log x)/x

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lord7:41 PM

    Let b=ca, c>1, then a=c^(1/(c-1)) and b=c^(1+(1/(c-1))). These range from (e,e) to (2,4) for c in the range 1..2.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wabulon11:02 PM

    Not sure, John, what you have in mind. Lord, you have it, with your "c" is my "p"--but p is unlimited (except p=1), not sure where (e,e) and (2,4) come in.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lord8:43 PM

    Those are (a,b) for c, which approach (1,c) from above as c diverges. a is in the range 1..e and b in the range e..Inf, with (e,e) occurring at c 1. Another memorable point (for low number of digits) is for c 1.5, (2.25,3.375).

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more