Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

What is the real positive $\upsilon$ that satisfies $\upsilon^\upsilon=\upsilon+1$? I think the Lambert-W function might be relevant here, but I have no idea how to use it.

$\upsilon\approx 1.775678$

I just really like the letter upsilon. It doesn't get enough love.

share|cite|improve this question
Newtons method? – picakhu Dec 21 '12 at 20:15
I think only numerical solution. – Patrick Li Dec 21 '12 at 20:23
No, LambertW says nothing about this. I doubt very much that there is a closed-form solution. – Robert Israel Dec 21 '12 at 20:39
$x^x = x + 2$ is easier. – Will Jagy Dec 21 '12 at 20:54
See . According to this web page, this number is transcendental. Most likely, there is no closed form expression for it in terms of elementary functions. – Yury Jan 11 '13 at 2:24

I used a very simple method, "iterative fixed point method", look that $x^{x}=x+1$ is equivalent to $x^{x}-x-1=0$ and $-2x=x^{x}-3x-1$ and $x=\frac{x^{x}-3x-1}{-2}$. Define $g(x)=\frac{x^{x}-3x-1}{-2}$ so the answer of equation $x^{x}=x+1$ is the fixed point of the function $g(x)$. For finding it we note that because $g'(x)=\frac{(1+ln(x))x^{x}-3}{-2}$ is decreasing in interval $[1.65,1.9]$ and $g'(1.65)=-0.2124....$ and $g'(1.9)=-0.667....$ so $g'(x)$ is negative in interval $[1.65,1.9]$ and $g(x)$ is decreasing in this interval and as $g(1.65)=1.83....$ and $g(1.9)=1.65....$ we have $$\forall x\in [1.65,1.9] \; :\;g(x)\in [1.65,1.9]$$ and also we have seen that $$\forall x\in [1.65,1.9] \; : \; |g'(x)|\leq 0.67<1$$ so by a theorem in Numerical Analysis for iterative fixed point method the sequence $\{g(x_{n})\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ is convergence to requested point, if we choose $x_{1}\in [1.65,1.9]$. But if you want something else like only using "Lambert W function" and such things, please say me.

share|cite|improve this answer
@hombre, Perhaps You don't want numerical solutions and looking to this number as a limit of a sequence, from above discussions it is brightly that you want to earn this number as some form of some well-known functions. – AmirHosein SadeghiManesh Jan 7 '13 at 8:21
Yeah, you're right. Thank you; I appreciate your answer, but I was hoping for a solution that wasn't a recursive sequence or an infinite sum or anything like that. – hombre Jan 7 '13 at 22:41

If you plan to use newton's method, it helps to simplify first: Take $\log$ on both sides to get $$ \upsilon \log(\upsilon) = \log(\upsilon+1)$$

Let $$f(\upsilon) = \upsilon \log(\upsilon) - \log(\upsilon+1)$$ Then $$ f'(\upsilon) = \log(\upsilon) - \frac{\upsilon}{\upsilon+1}$$ The Newton's method gives

$$\upsilon_{n+1} = \upsilon_n - \frac{f(\upsilon)}{f'(\upsilon)}$$

Starting with $$\upsilon_0 =1$$ one gets the solution to machine precision in 5 steps as $$\upsilon = 1.77677504009705$$

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.