it can not be integrated in terms of elementary functions. failure.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-28 12:56
>>3
2 here. Good point. I concede and allow this topic to unfold.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 2:04
its a simple u substitution problem
do it, faggot
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 4:27
integral(x^x*dx) is the new 0.999... = 1 for the /sci/ philosophers
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 4:55
Just write x^x = e^(x log x). Then the answer is obviously e^(x log x) / (x log x).
Hope this helps!
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 8:42
>>10
It's x ln x, and won't help, it is fallacious in the same manner that some prove that 0 = 1.
The only way you get even close to this shit is by expanding using Taylor, and you get something like: http://files.liveadmaker.com/F/10044924/Image.gif
Also pretend I'm a kike and anything you disagree with me will be taken as a sign of anti-Semitism, and stfu about x^x already.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 14:24
I can remember the professor writing down the integral of x^x on the blackboard at the beginning of each single class. At the exams some people still failed it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 18:05
step one: rewrite it as e^(x*ln(x))
step two: expand (x*ln(x)) into a taylor series for e^(variable)
step three: each term in theseries will have one x^n term and another n*ln(x) term. Integrate by parts, taking u=n*ln(x)
step four: if you can write the terms as a new series, then you're not an idiot and good job. apply whatever limits you want now and get your answer.
step five: ?????
step six: profit!
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-29 18:39
Mathematica could not find a formula for your integral. Most likely this means that no formula exists. [More information]
Name:
Anonymous2007-11-30 19:50
>>14
any douchebag can punch it into their old flawed software.
learn some math, idiot
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-02 15:54
>>15
You do realize that >>1 never gave a variable of integration, right?
Name:
Anonymous2007-12-02 15:57
>>16
HMM I WONDER WHAT IT IS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS INTERESTING.