9

I am interested in the equation $a^{a^x}=x$ for some fixed $a>0$. Is there some way to rearrange for $x$ or solve otherwise? What about the nature of the solutions? For which fixed $a>0$ are there any real solutions $x>0$, and how many?

I already worked with the equation $a^x=x$ and I can deal with it. I learned from the comments that a real solution exists for $a\le e^{1/e}$ and is given by

$$x=-\frac{W(-\ln(a))}{\ln(a)}$$

with the Lambert W function. But the equation above is out of reach for me.

  • 2
    I'm curious to see how you solved the first equation. –  Oct 26 '17 at 13:02
  • As Zachary said, show us the solution for $a^x=x$. This might be important for us in order to understand the tools which are available to you. – M. Winter Oct 26 '17 at 13:04
  • By build f(x)=a^x-x,then divide the problem into 2 parts:1.a>1 2.0<a<1 – Veritas Julius Oct 26 '17 at 13:06
  • Then, using derivitive can easily solve the first part has no real solution. – Veritas Julius Oct 26 '17 at 13:09
  • As for the second part, the derivitive of f(x) equal to (lna*a^x-1) which is completely increasing when x>0, then we can see f(0)=1>0,so the derivitive of f(x) must >0. Which is 1<a<e,then the derivitive has only one real solution which is log(a,(log(a,e)),which is the minimum of f(x),let this minimum >0 then the question will be solved. when a>e 0 solution;when 0<a<1 1 solution;when 1<a<e 2 solutions. – Veritas Julius Oct 26 '17 at 13:22
  • @VeritasJulius So what is your final result? What is $x=...$ for some specific $a$? It seems you are just trying to prove the existence of a solution, not how to compute it. In the case of $a^x=x$ the solution is $x=-W(-\ln(a))/\ln(a)$. Are you familiar with the Lambert W-function? I think there is no similarly standard solution for $a^{a^x}=a^{(a^x)}=x$. – M. Winter Oct 27 '17 at 10:29
  • Well,I am not trying to solve this equation which is beyond my reach because I’m just a new college school student. I am just trying to find a way to divide this problem into some certain parts in order to know the number of solutions.And now I am asking for help for the question as my title suggests. I will be very grateful if anyone help me. – Veritas Julius Oct 27 '17 at 11:54
  • @VeritasJulius If you are "merely" interested in the number and existence of solution you should definitely include this into your post, because at it is now noone will answer because noone can rearrange for $x$. Also consider linking people in your comment, otherwise noone will be notified when you answer in the comments. – M. Winter Oct 27 '17 at 13:05
  • Thank you! I will remember this when asking my other questions. By the way, I am not in a English speaking country so my expression may be confusing and unclear – Veritas Julius Oct 27 '17 at 14:50
  • @VeritasJulius Do you give me the permission to edit you question in a way in which I think you should have asked it? You can check and reroll if it does not fit your intetions. And please mention me in your comment (us the @ sign and my name) otherwise I may not be able to return to this post. – M. Winter Oct 27 '17 at 15:24
  • @M.Winter Thank you again. I think you get me quite well. Please correct my post and I will check if it is my own meaning – Veritas Julius Oct 27 '17 at 15:33
  • @M.Winter Thanks for help! It’s exactly what I should have posted – Veritas Julius Oct 28 '17 at 00:03
  • 1
    Just one short comment, possibly I can do later an answer. If $a^x=x$ then of course $a^{a^x}=x$ so the problem is obviously to find more or the other fixpoints for the latter. – Gottfried Helms Oct 28 '17 at 06:03
  • 1
    Also we can write more symmetrical $(a^x)^{(a^x)}=x^x$ where it is also visible, that some fixpoint $x_0=a^{x_0}$ is of course a solution. But it might be also a starting point to find other solutions $x_1$ where $x_1 \ne a^{x_1}$ ... – Gottfried Helms Oct 28 '17 at 06:49
  • 2
    By a plot, for $1<a<e^{-e}$ I can't see additional real fixpoints for $\large a^{a ^x}$ besides that of $a ^x$ (The latter are of course given by $x_\text{lo}=\exp(-W_0(-\log(a))$ and $x_\text{hi}=\exp(-W_{-1}(-\log(a))$) – Gottfried Helms Oct 28 '17 at 07:16
  • 2
    Plotting shows, that only for $0<a<1/e^e$ there are two more real fixpoints for $a^{a^x}$ besides the real fixpoints of $a^x$. (For $e^{-e} <a$ there are no real fixpoints at all.) – Gottfried Helms Oct 28 '17 at 08:01
  • Let $t$ be the fixpoint of $a^x$ with bases $0<a<e^{-e}$ . Then $a^{a^x}$ has the same fixpoint $t$. But there are two more fixpoints $t_0$ and $t_1$. It seems, $a^{t_0}=t_1$ and $a^{t_1}=t_0$. Don't see yet however how to exploit this to find an explicite formula for $t_0$ or $t_1$. – Gottfried Helms Oct 28 '17 at 10:27
  • The Lambert W link is to the wrong page. – Qudit Nov 01 '17 at 09:31

5 Answers5

6

Remark: I have not yet a closed-form formula for the occuring fixpoints, but to put the earlier comments together and to give at least a simple computational procedure to determine the additional fixpoints.

  1. ) To "symmetrize" the formula we observe, that we can as well write $$ (a^x)^{(a^x)} = x^x \tag 1$$ This makes even more obvious, that $f(x)=a^{a^x}$ has the same fixpoints as $g(x)=a^x$ (We have $f(x)=g(g(x))$ so this is of course basically obvious).
    .
    Let $t= \exp(-W_0(-\log(a))) $ then $a=t^{1/t}$ and $(t^{1/t})^t=t^1=t$ and $t$ is a fixpoint (may be complex).

  2. ) By a plot we find in four ranges for $a$ different behaviour. $$ \begin{array} {} (1)& e^{1/e}& <a &<\infty & 0 \text{ real fixpoint for $g(x)$ and $f(x)$ } \\ (2)& e^{1/e} &= a & & 1 \text{ real fixpoint for $g(x)$ and $f(x)$ } \\ (3)& 1 &< a &< e^{1/e} & 2 \text{ real fixpoints for $g(x)$ and $f(x)$ } \\ (4)& e^{-e} &\le a & \le 1 & 1 \text{ real fixpoint for $g(x)$ and $f(x)$ } \\ (5)& 0 &< a & < e^{-e} & 1 \text{ real fixpoint for $g(x)$ and $f(x)$ } \\ & & & & \text {and $2$ more real fixpoints for $f(x)$ } \end{array} \tag 2$$

  3. ) Where possible, the "standard" real fixpoint $t$ is computed using the LambertW using $W_0(x)$ and in case (3) we find another one using $W_{-1}(x)$. For case 5 we can find the two other fixpoints $u$ (lower),$v$ (upper) by the following routine

Pseudocode:

let a=0.01
let u=0, v=1 
for k=1 to 10: u, v = a^v, a^u : end  \\ to approximate initially 
\\ use Newton-algorithm to approximate second fixpoint to high precision
err=1 
while err>1e-200 
  err = (a^a^u - u )/(a^a^u * a^u * log(a)^2 - 1)
  u = u-err
wend
\\ find the third fixpoint v
v = a^u

Example: For base $a=0.01$ I find the first fixpoint for $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ using the Lambert $W_0()$-function as $t=0.27798742481...$ .
The two additional fixpoints for $f(x)$ are $u=0.013092520508... $ and $v= 0.941488368575...$ .

  1. ) We have for bases of the case (5)
    $$ \large \begin{array} {} a^{a^t}=t & a^{a^u}=u &a^{a^v}=v & \small \text{all are fixpoints of $f(x)$ }\\ a^t = t &a^u = v & a^v = u \\ a=t^{1/t} &a = u^{1/v} & a = v^{1/u} \end{array} $$

Perhaps from the last equalitites one can derive more closed-form expressions using Lambert W...

Picture for the three fixpoints for bases $0<b<1/e^e$ (sorry that I used "b" instead of your "a" for the base, it is my long-trained notation)

picture

  • 1
    Thank you. You not only answered my question, but also provided me with a new thought toward the “solutions of Lambert W-like functions”. – Veritas Julius Oct 29 '17 at 00:45
  • You're welcome! You made me myself curious about such a closed-form solution... I'll have my paper&pen at hand later ... – Gottfried Helms Oct 29 '17 at 00:56
  • Of possible historical interest is Jeran-H. Grillet (??-??), Les exponentielles successives d'Euler et les logarithmes des différents ordres des nombres [Successive exponentials of Euler and logarithms of different orders of numbers], Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées 10 #6 (June 1845), 233-241. The special case $x = b^{b^x}$ is discussed in several places (e.g. pp. 235-237, 240). – Dave L. Renfro Oct 29 '17 at 13:13
  • @Dave - thanks for the nice article. I don't understand french besides some "keywords" but with the sequel of formulae I could roughly follow what he was writing. 1845! Clever people use a notation hinting at to what they denote: in particular, they use "b" for the base of exponentiation. And if they have two fixpoints (or periodic points) one low and one high they use the same letter (c) in low and in capital notation so many formulae are better self-explaining than usually. Next: he had no possibility of doing a plot on-the-fly... – Gottfried Helms Oct 29 '17 at 13:32
  • FYI, I can very poorly read French, probably better than what you described, but only a little better. For example, I used google translate to translate the title, although I was able to slightly clean up the result based on knowing the subject matter involved. However, it occurs to me now that I should have left the first word "The" in the title, using The successive exponentials of Euler and logarithms of different orders of numbers. – Dave L. Renfro Oct 29 '17 at 13:46
  • Also of possible interest: Franz Woepcke (1826-1864), Note sur l'expression ${\left( \left( {(a^a)}^{{}^a} \right) !! {}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{.^{.^{.^{{.}^{a}}}}}}}}}} !!!\right)} !!! {}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{{}^{a}}}}}}}}}}}$ et les fonctions inverses correspondantes [Note on the expression ## and the corresponding inverse functions], Journal für die Reine Angewandte Mathematik 42 #1 (1851), 83-90. – Dave L. Renfro Oct 29 '17 at 15:26
  • @Dave - perhaps you like that one of mine. http://go.helms-net.de/math/tetdocs/Wexzal_Superroot.pdf It is unlikely to be expanded to appear in some journal, but it looks also at the formal power series which are generatable by the inverse of that b^ ... b^b^b and discussing a bit a somehow generalized iterated LambertW. (Also it is perhaps a good moment to say "thank you" for your steady stream of useful links which I've enjoyed a respectible number of years. How do you find them all?) – Gottfried Helms Oct 29 '17 at 15:38
  • In the Woepke paper I find interesting how they were (in 1850'ies) even searching for a good notation for the problem such that a powerful symbolic algebra becomes available. (The prominent example I think is the differential-notation of G.F.Leibniz). For the discussion of the inverse functions it becomes (in my view) visible, how important is to analyze b^b^...^x instead only of b^b^...^b The difficult derivations that Woepke faces are surely a consequence of that -in my view:misleading- second concept. It is meaningless to introduce a notation for the iterated b'th logarithm of b itself – Gottfried Helms Oct 29 '17 at 16:29
  • I half expected that you had already seen these papers because they were among the many papers I snail-mailed photocopies of to Galidakis about 15 years ago and which he assembled (at my suggestion) into a briefly annotated literature list on his web pages. I don't think they were available online then, but they've certainly been freely available for at least 10 years. For a very thorough bibliography for pre-1907 work, see pp. i-iv of Albert Carlsson's 1907 Ph.D. dissertation Om Itererade Funktioner. – Dave L. Renfro Oct 29 '17 at 17:44
  • Incidentally, I sent a photocopy of Carlsson's dissertation (obtained via interlibrary loan from Duke University) to Galidakis and mentioned the extensive bibliography at the beginning, but I don't know whether he tried to include all the items in his literature list. Incidentally, the function $a^{a^x}$ is studied on pp. 17-20 of Carlsson's dissertation (I have my photocopy in front of me right now). Most of these iterated exponential papers I found by simply obtaining copies (over a period of several years) of the items in Knoebel's bibliography, and a few others (continued) – Dave L. Renfro Oct 29 '17 at 17:51
  • that have crossed my path when I'm flipping through journal volumes looking for things of possible interest to me (something I've been doing since the late 1980s). As far as this topic is concerned, I began losing interest in it in the late 1990s, but continued collecting papers when I came across them (since I had so many notebooks full of them by this time), and when I learned of Galidakis's interest in this stuff a few years later, I felt better about how much time I had spent trying to collect it. Shortly thereafter, the internet seemed to explode with stuff about tetration and such . . . – Dave L. Renfro Oct 29 '17 at 17:57
  • @Dave - the Galidakis-fundus was really a treasure for me! Nice that you found late justification for your early engagement. Today I think the many many open tetration-threads around should be consolidated by a similar collection of material of the last 10 years. But let's stop here the commenting on meta facts. Otherwise MSE might move it into chat and I would like to keep it here for historical reasons. – Gottfried Helms Oct 29 '17 at 18:53
  • 2
    nice work Gottfried! I tried a=0.07, which is a little bit bigger than exp(-e); and I found a complex conjugate fixed point pair; 0.359606324 + 0.135584257*I. So probably there is an analytic function in the square root in the neighborhood of $\sqrt{a-\exp(-e)}$ for the fixed point of $a^{a^z}$.. – Sheldon L Oct 30 '17 at 10:00
5

I found a way to rearrange for $x$ which works for some $a$ and yields some solution! Some rigorous analysis is necessary to completely understand this procedure and to find similar forms of the other (real) solutions (there are zero to three). I still hope this might help you.


So let's start from $a^{a^x}=x$ for $a,x>0$, and state it like Gottfried did as $(a^x)^{a^x}=x^x$. There is the well known way to parametrize some solutions of $x^x=y^y$, which is

$$x=t^{\frac{1}{1-t}},\qquad y=t^{\frac t{1-t}}$$

for $t>0$. So, to solve the above problem, we are looking for a value $t$ for which we have

$$x=t^{\frac{^1}{1-t}},\qquad a^x=t^{\frac t{1-t}}.$$

The left equation can be rearranged for $t$ and we get $t=\frac{W(x\log x)}{\log x}$. When we plug this into the right side we find

$$a^x = \left(t^{\frac 1{1-t}}\right)^t=x^t=x^{\frac{W(x\log x)}{\log x}}\quad\Rightarrow\quad a=x^{\frac{W(x\log x)}{x\log x}}=x^{\frac{W(u)}u}$$

with $u=x\log x$. This gives $x=u/W(u)$ and

$$a=\left(\frac{W(u)}u\right)^{-\frac{W(u)}u}=z^{-z}$$

with $z=W(u)/u$. We can solve for $z$ and finally find

$$z=-\frac{\log a}{W(-\log a)}.$$

which can be used to find $u$ via $u=-\log (z)/z$. The final solution might look something like this:

Solution. $$ x =\frac{u}{W(u)} =\frac{-\frac{\log z}{z}}{W(-\frac{\log z}{z})} =\frac{\frac{\log \left(-\frac{\log a}{W(-\log a)}\right)}{\frac{\log a}{W(-\log a)}}}{W\left(\frac{\log \left(-\frac{\log a}{W(-\log a)}\right)}{\frac{\log a}{W(-\log a)}}\right)} $$

Of course, this monstrous formula should never be used. Instead use the resubstituation like this:

$$z=-\frac{\log a}{W(-\log a)} \quad\to\quad u=-\frac{\log (z)}{z} \quad\to\quad x=\frac{u}{W(u)}.$$

Example. Choosing $a=1/2$ and above formula gave me the solution $x\approx 0.641186$ which indeed solves $a^{a^{x}}=x$.

I also tested it with $a=2$, which yielded a complex solution $x\approx 0.824679 - 1.56743i$ which worked, but shed no light on whether there are any other real ones.

Gottfried mentioned in the comments that it seems not to work for e.g. $a=0.01$. This is why more investigations are necessary.


Gottfried hinted me to the fact that this can be simplified (at least for some $a$) to the function

$$x(a)=\exp(-W(-\log(a))).$$

This seems to work for all $a$ (in contrast to my resubstituation formula above), but still gives only a single solution. Maybe the other branches of $W$ can give other real solutions, but not sure.

M. Winter
  • 29,928
  • Hmm, that seems to me to contain a needless loop... You get the value $x=0.641186$ simply by $x=\exp(-W(-\log(a)))$ . Simple plots show that for base $a=2$ you won't have any real fixpoint. For the base from the intersting range, where the bases $a$ provide $3$ fixpoints (my example $a=0.01$) your formula gave $0.465786959979$ which I can so far not relate to the three solutions in my answer. (But I'll try to find some ralation) – Gottfried Helms Nov 01 '17 at 11:36
  • @GottfriedHelms That's very interesting! I made no effort to simplify this, because I was satisfied by the fact that I was able to rearrange it! Yes, we probably already know that there is no real solution for $a=2$, but this cannot be seen from my current approach. – M. Winter Nov 01 '17 at 11:38
  • @GottfriedHelms You are right. My approach seems to be restricted so some specific range (which I do not know). Your formula gives $x\approx 0.277987$ which works. – M. Winter Nov 01 '17 at 11:42
  • I just checked a base $1<b< e^{1/e}$ - here your final 3-step formula works. So perhaps this has something to do with range-restrictions in the Lambert W-function. Perhaps try by analysis of different branches? – Gottfried Helms Nov 01 '17 at 11:47
  • For base $a=2$ Wolfram Alpha finds your value too: $x(2) = 0.824678546142 + 1.56743212385*I $ so your method seems to work at least for $1<a$ and not only for the restricted range which I've checked in my previous comment. – Gottfried Helms Nov 01 '17 at 11:56
2

In a previous mathstack question I posted a formal series solution for finding the fixed points of $z \mapsto \exp(z)-1+k$. This analytic Taylor series in $\sqrt{-2k}$ can generate both fixed points for bases between $1 < a < \exp(1/e)$ as well as the complex conjugate pair of fixed points for bases $>\exp(1/e)$, and works for complex bases, as well as real bases<1. Since that post, I I have a better way to formally calculate that series.

For the Op's question, it seemed there might be a series that could work in the neighborhood of $\exp(-e)$, to generate the two periodic solutions. I was able to generate just such a series which work wells for $0<a\approx<0.6$. For calculating Gottfried's fixed point pair solution for $a^{a^x}$ for $0<a<e^{-e}$. we need this new Taylor series, which is centered on the parabolic fixed point with multiplier -1. We expect that the solution would be analytic in $\sqrt{x-\exp(-e)}$. But just as with the earlier problem, it is simplest to find such a Taylor series using a mathematically "congruent" problem.

For the Ops problem, $a^{a^x}$, for $0<a<1$ I use this congruence equation, where we want period2 fixed points of $f(y)$ with $$k=\ln(-\ln(a))-1$$ and then we can instead iterate: $$y \mapsto f(y,k);\;\; \text{where} \;\;\;f(y,k)=-\exp(y)+1+k;\;\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\;y=z\ln(a)+\ln(-\ln(a));$$ $$z \mapsto a^z;\;\;\;\text{is congruent to}\;\;\; y \mapsto f(y,k);\;\;\;\; k=\ln(-\ln(a))-1; $$ $$ f\big(z\ln(a)+\ln(-\ln(a))\big)=(a^z)\ln(a)+\ln(-\ln(a));\;\;\; f \; \text{is congruent to}\; a^z$$

k=0 corresponds to $a=\exp(-e)$, which has a multiplier of -1. The two periodic fixed points of $f(y,k)$ has a series which I shall call $g$, whose definition is below. We then find a formal series solution for the two periodic fixed point pairs of $f(f(x,k))=x$

$$f(x,k) = -\exp(x)+1+k$$ $$f(g(\sqrt{6k},k) = g(-\sqrt{6k})\;\;\;\;\text{g(-x) is the other fixed point}$$ $$-\exp((g(\sqrt{6k}))+1+k = g(-\sqrt{6k})\;\;\;\;\text{definition of f}$$ $$-\exp(g(x))+1+\frac{x^2}{6}=g(-x)\;\;\;\;\text{by substituting k=x^2/6}$$

That is the formal series definition for g, where the $x^2/6$ term was chosen so that the for the g Taylor series below, the x^1 coefficient=1. In this equation, $g(x)$ corresponds to one fixed point, and $g(-x)$ corresponds to the other fixed point.

And the two cycle fixed point of $y\mapsto -\exp(y)+1+k$ may be found by $y=g(\pm\sqrt{6k})$. And then the fixed point pair of z for $z\mapsto a^{a^z}$ may be found by using this equation:

$$z=\frac{g(\pm\sqrt{6k})-\ln(-\ln(a))}{\ln(a)};\;\;\;\; k=\ln(-\ln(a))+1 $$

The first 16 terms of the series for g are as follows. I wrote a pari=gp program to calculate the formal series for g which requires iterating solving 2x2 simultaneous equations for pairs of consecutive terms, but it is not too bad. With enough terms, the series can be used on its own, or the series can be used as an input to Newton's method to get a more accurate answer.

g=
+x^ 1*  1
+x^ 2* -1/6
+x^ 3*  1/20
+x^ 4* -1/90
+x^ 5*  523/151200
+x^ 6* -23/28350
+x^ 7*  239/1008000
+x^ 8* -19/340200
+x^ 9*  1471949/100590336000
+x^10* -6583/1964655000
+x^11*  94891697/130767436800000
+x^12* -49909/328378050000
+x^13*  18670028801/988601822208000000
+x^14* -520019/241357866750000
+x^15* -88448773393/67224923910144000000
+x^16*  254033333/492370048170000000 ....

So lets say we want to two real fixed points for $a^{a^z}$ for a=0.04 Then $k=\ln(-\ln(0.04))-1\approx 0.1690321758870$, and we want $g(\pm\sqrt{6k})$ so we wind up with z=0.0896008408659, 0.749451269718 as the two fixed points. For this case, the 16 term series is accurate to about 10-11 decimal digits, and a 48 term series is accurate to 26 decimal digits. Surprisingly with a 16 term series for a=0.01, we still get ~5 decimal digits of precision.

One can also get the complex conjugate pair of fixed points for $a>-\exp(-e)$, for example for $a=0.1$ we get the following pair of complex conjugate fixed points, also accurate to about 10 decimal digits using the 16 term series above. z=0.294596558514 +/- 0.413195411460*I

Here is a graph of the fixed points from 0.001 to 0.3. You can compare this graph to Gottfried's graph, where I have added the complex conjugate fixed points for x>exp(-e). The fixed points meet at exp(-e). We see the complex conjugate pair of fixed points to the right, and the real pair of fixed points to the left, as well as the primary real fixed point which is calculated by another method. graph from 0.001 to 0.3

Sheldon L
  • 4,534
0

For the real solutions of equation $(E): a^{a^x}=x$. I can provide you with an elementary solution to discuss the number of solutions with respect to the values of $a$.

  1. First of all, one can easily see that the solutions of $(E'): {a^x}=x$ are also solutions of $(E)$. So, $S'\subset S$.
  2. By studying the variations of $g(x)=a^x-x$, one finds:

$\bullet$ If $0<a\leq 1$ or $a=e^{\frac{1}{e}}$, then $\#S'=1$.

$\bullet$ If $1<a<e^{\frac{1}{e}}$, then $\#S'=2$.

$\bullet$ If $a>e^{\frac{1}{e}}$, then $\#S'=0$.

  1. Now, from the variations of $f(x)=a^x-\dfrac{ln(x)}{ln(a)}$, where $a\neq1$, since $(E)$ is equivalent to $a^x=\dfrac{ln(x)}{ln(a)}$, one can establish that:

$\bullet$ If $0<a<e^{-e}$: Then, $f$ has two horizontal tangents at $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $\alpha<\dfrac{-1}{ln(a)}<\beta$, with $\lim_{x\to\pm\infty} f(x)=\pm\infty$, $f$ increasing over $]0,\alpha[\cup]\beta,+\infty[$ and decreasing over $]\alpha,\beta[$. But since, $f((\dfrac{-1}{ln(a)})^z)<0,~\forall z\geq1$. Then, $f(\alpha)<0$ and $f(\beta)<0$. Hence, $\#S=1$.

$\bullet$ If $e^{-e}\leq a<1$: Then, $f$ increasing over $]0,+\infty[$, $f(0)=-1$ and $\lim_{x\to+\infty} f(x)=+\infty$. So, $\#S=1$.

$\bullet$ If $1<a<e^{\frac{1}{e}}$: One has $S'\subset S$, $\#S'=2$ and $\#S\leq2$. So, $\#S=2$.

$\bullet$ If $a=e^{\frac{1}{e}}$: Then, $f$ has a horizontal tangent at $e$, $\lim_{x\to\pm\infty} f(x)=+\infty$ and $f(e)=0$. So, $\#S=1$.

$\bullet$ If $a>e^{\frac{1}{e}}$: Then, $\#S\leq2$. Let's suppose that $S=\{x_1,x_2\}$, with $x_1<x_2$. Hence, $a^{x_1}<a^{x_2}$ are also solutions. So, $a^{x_1}=x_1$ and $a^{x_2}=x_2$. Then, $S\subset S'=\emptyset$, a contradiction. Again, by the same argument, we prove that $\#S=0$.

To summerize: 

$\#S=0$ if and only if $a>e^{\frac{1}{e}}$.

$\#S=1$ if and only if $0<a\leq1$ or $a=e^{\frac{1}{e}}$.

$\#S=2$ if and only if $1<a<e^{\frac{1}{e}}$.

0

$$a^{a^x}=x$$ $$a^{a^x}-x=0$$

We see, this equation is a polynomial equation of more than one algebraically independent monomials ($a^{a^x},x$) and with no univariate factor. We therefore don't know how to rearrange the equation for $x$ by applying only finite numbers of elementary functions (elementary operations) we can read from the equation.

a)

As can be seen from the comment of Gottfried Helms, the solution can be guessed with a special trick as the solution of the equation

$$a^x=x$$

as

$$x=-\frac{W_k(-\ln(a))}{\ln(a)}\ \ (\forall k\in\mathbb{Z})$$

in terms of Lambert W.

b)

Without any special trick, we can bring the equation into a form for applying Hyper Lambert W.

$$e^{\ln(a)e^{\ln(a)x}}=x$$ $$1=xe^{-\ln(a)e^{\ln(a)x}}$$ $$xe^{-\ln(a)e^{\ln(a)x}}=1$$

$$G\left(-\ln(a),\ln(a);x\right)=1$$ $$x=HW\left(-\ln(a),\ln(a);1\right)$$

So we have a closed form for $x$, and the representations of Hyper Lambert W give some hints for calculating $x$.

Galidakis, I. N.: On solving the p-th complex auxiliary equation $f^{(p)}(z)=z$. Complex Variables 50 (2005) (13) 977-997

Galidakis, I. N.: On some applications of the generalized hyper-Lambert functions. Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations 52 (2007) (12) 1101-1119

IV_
  • 6,964