Talk:Equation xy = yx

Latest comment: 7 months ago by Hugo Spinelli in topic Removal of redundant proof

Error edit

Section 1, second paragraph,

if r,n are positive integers, r ≥ 3 or n ≥ 3 then r^(r+n) > (r+n)^r ;

This is trivially false (set r=1, n=3, then 1 < 4). Should it read "r>=3 and n>=3" ? That would certainly seem to be true but I have no idea if it's what Hengel actually pointed out. Salaw (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are correct in that the statement as given above is wrong. However, Hengel proves the result with no restriction on n other than it being a positive integer. I've corrected the statement. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The constraint x=y produces valid solutions for all complex numbers except perhaps x=y=0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:41FA:8400:4083:5783:1E30:2047 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Derivative dy/dx of the pairs (x,y) not on the line y=x edit

Section 2 (Positive real solutions) second paragraph says that, for the   pairs not on the line  , the derivative   is equal to   for   and  . But isn't

 

and

 

so

 

for the   pairs not on the line  ? 2A02:1811:BC10:E700:E86A:DB82:177C:B51 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, seems to be a mistake by the editor. The source given doesn't mention the derivative, but it's a straightforward calculation. I have fixed it. -- Hugo Spinelli (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Removal of redundant proof edit

I have removed the following proof:

A general solution to   is obtained by noting that the positive real quadrant can be 'covered' by the intersection of the two equations   and   ( ). Requiring that some points also satisfy the equation   means that   and by comparing exponents,   Thus, the 'covering' equations mean that   and by exponentiating both sides by   ( ),   and   The case of   corresponds to the solution  . The full solution thus is  

Reason: The other proof for the parametric solution is very similar, but much more concise. This one adds nothing of value to the article, in my opinion. If anyone disagrees, feel free to add it back to the article. Hugo Spinelli (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply