Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I came across this proposition while trying to prove that a function was injective: if $a>b$ then $a^a>b^b$, where $a$ and $b$ are real numbers bigger than 1 . Intuitively it (somehow) makes sense but I wonder if a rigorous proof can be made. But, the initial problem I was trying to solve was to show that $f(x)=x^x$, where $x$ is just a positive real number, is injective. As the "contrapositive method" from the definition of an injective function didn't work out, I figured I could just show that my function was strictly increasing or decreasing, therefore the function would be injective. I looked at the graph of this function and I noticed I have a turning point at $x=1/e$ (as the user MXYMXY pointed out). Thus I had two cases for my function.

share|cite|improve this question
    
I didn't read the question properly at first. Sorry. – Foobaz John Feb 14 at 0:44
up vote 10 down vote accepted

If $a\gt b$ and $a\gt1$ and $b\gt1$ and $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$ then this implies:$$a^b\gt b^b\tag{1}$$

Also, if $a\gt b$ then this implies:$$a^a\gt a^b\tag{2}$$

Now, making use of result (1) in result (2) yields:$$a^a\gt a^b\gt b^b$$

share|cite|improve this answer
5  
@BenjaminDickman read the restriction in the question, that a and b are both greater than 1. – Patrick Roberts Feb 14 at 6:27
1  
The notation $(a,b) \in \mathbb{R}$ is confusing, since $(a,b)$ looks as a pair. I'd write that without parentheses: $a,b \in \mathbb{R}$. – chi Feb 14 at 18:40
1  
@chi Thanks for heads up - duly noted and changed. – Mufasa Feb 14 at 19:41
    
Why is assuming that $a^b > b^b$ and that $a^a > a^b$ any more "basic" than assuming that $a^a > b^b$, I wonder? – fgp Feb 14 at 22:15

You're asking to prove that the map $f(x):=x^x=\exp(x\log x)$ is strictly increasing. But since $x\mapsto x$ and $x\mapsto\log x$ are both strictly increasing and the first one is $>1$ in $\Bbb R_{>1}$, their product is such (in $\Bbb R_{>1}$).

Then the exponential is strictly increasing too, so $f$ is the composition of strictly increasing maps, thus itself is strictly increasing too.

share|cite|improve this answer
2  
You should point out where you are using $x>1$. It is not true in general that the product of two strictly increasing functions is strictly increasing, take as an example the functions $x$ and $x$ with product $x^2$. – Carsten S Feb 14 at 13:48
    
You're right, thanks. I'm gonna fix – Joe Feb 14 at 14:02

Note that the derivative of $x^x$ is $(\ln(x)+1)x^x>0$(see here) if $x>e^{-1}$, implying $x^x$ is a strictly increasing function if $x>e^{-1}$.

This implies your claim is true not only when $a,b>1$ but also $a,b>e^{-1}$

share|cite|improve this answer

Try this sequence of inequalities: $$b^b < b^a < a^a $$

share|cite|improve this answer

Since $a > b > 1$, and since $\log(x)$ is an increasing function of $x$, then $$\log(a) > \log(b) > 0.$$ Multiplying these two inequalities together: $$a > b > 1$$ and $$\log(a) > \log(b) > 0$$ gives you $$a\log(a) > b\log(b).$$ By a property of logarithms ($x\log(x) = \log(x^x)$), this implies $$\log(a^a) > \log(b^b).$$ Again, since $\log(x)$ is an increasing function of $x$, we obtain $$a^a > b^b.$$

QED

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.