31
$\begingroup$

WolframAlpha seems to tell me that $e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^{e^i}}}}}}}}}} = 1$, see link. Is this just an error or is it for real? Adding one more $e$ to the bottom of the tower gives me the number $e$, so it's specific to the 11 $e$'s I used in the tower.

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Wolfram says it is 1.00000000000000... not just 1, so I think it is an approximation, otherwise it should have shown 1 only. $\endgroup$ – pritam Aug 23 '12 at 7:07
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This happens because with 10 $e$'s you get a number very very close to zero, because with 9 $e$'s you get a number with a very large negative real part, because with 8 $e$'s you get a number whose real part is large and imaginary part is between $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$. The trajectory of the iterations is chaotic. $\endgroup$ – Rahul Aug 23 '12 at 7:11
27
$\begingroup$

You can readily check this using an independent method. Let $x_n + i y_n\in\mathbb{C}$ be the value of a tower of $n$ copies of $e$ with a single $i$ at the top, so that $x_{n+1}+iy_{n+1}=\exp(x_n+iy_n)$. This can be rewritten as $e^{x_n}\left(\cos y_n+i \sin y_n\right)$, giving the recursion $$ x_{n+1}=e^{x_n}\cos y_n,\qquad y_{n+1}=e^{x_n}\sin y_n. $$ The starting values are $x_0=0$ and $y_0=1$. Evaluating this recursion numerically gives the following table: $$ \begin{eqnarray} (x_1,y_1) &=& (0.5403023058681398, &&0.8414709848078965) \\ (x_2,y_2) &=& (1.1438356437916404, &&1.2798830013730222) \\ (x_3,y_3) &=& (0.9002890839010574, &&3.006900083345737) \\ (x_4,y_4) &=& (-2.438030346526128, &&0.3303849520417783) \\ (x_5,y_5) &=& (0.08260952954639851, &&0.028331354522507797) \\ (x_6,y_6) &=& (1.0856817633955023, &&0.030767067267249513) \\ (x_7,y_7) &=& (2.960056578435498, &&0.09110100745978908) \\ (x_8,y_8) &=& (19.21903374615272, &&1.7557331998479278) \\ (x_9,y_9) &=& (-40856897.72613553, &&218399070.28039825) \\ (x_{10},y_{10}) &=& (-0.0, &&-0.0) \\ (x_{11},y_{11}) &=& (1.0, &&-0.0), \end{eqnarray} $$ which seems to confirm what Alpha says. However, it should be clear that what's actually happening is that a large negative real part is reached at $n=9$. This produces a numerical zero at $n=10$, followed by $1.0000\ldots$ at $n=11$. While the correct value at $n=11$ is close to $1$, it's not exact. The exact value will differ from $1$ somewhere around the $18$-millionth digit.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, Mathematica tells me the value at $n=10$ is actually about $(-4.72 - 3.51i)\times10^{-17743926}$. $\endgroup$ – Rahul Aug 23 '12 at 7:15
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I knew it was too good to be true! I had hoped to come near of the complex fixed points $e^z = z$ but instead found this. $\endgroup$ – Dog Aug 23 '12 at 7:17
  • $\begingroup$ As an additional note, the tower with 10 $e$'s gives a value of $\approx -4.722810346\times 10^{-17743926}-3.513602657\times 10^{-17743926}i$; taking the exponential of that will certainly give something very nearly equal to $1$. Alternatively, substituting this tiny value into the series $\exp\,x-1=x+\frac{x^2}{2}+\cdots$ is also illustrative. $\endgroup$ – J. M. is a poor mathematician Aug 23 '12 at 7:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Can anyone calculate this further? There seems to be an interesting pattern developing! $\endgroup$ – John Bentin Aug 23 '12 at 15:09
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnBentin: not exactly the same problem, but might be similar to the pattern you are refering to: math.stackexchange.com/questions/125522/… $\endgroup$ – example Sep 4 '12 at 15:05

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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