A few days ago, my Calculus professor discussed exponential functions in general. Apart from the easy stuff, he actually asked us something that caught my attention and yet puzzled me greatly. The problem at hand was the following:
Approximate , where ?
Furthermore, he mentioned that this can be solved using techniques for different representation of real numbers. This is something I have never come across thus far, and would love it if someone gave me a more thorough explanation if possible.
Needless to say, I would also like to see this problem generalized a bit.
Therefore, my questions are:
Given that , where and are real numbers, is there a valid way of finding ? If so, how does one do it and can you provide a valid proof?
Thank you very much in advance!
Note: Feel free to point at any literature that can answer my questions.
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Let's just consider the n=2 and b>0 case: suppose that the function f(x)=bx is uniformly continuous when b>0, then we can represent 2=limxk as the limit of some rational cauchy sequence. By uniform continuity, we can also claim that b^\sqrt{2} = f\left(\lim_k x_k\right)= \lim_k f(x_k) this means that we can construct a convergent sequence to b^\sqrt{2} by taking rational exponents, so for example, if we have nice technique/method of computing rational exponents, then we can compute 3^\sqrt{2} by computing 31,31.4,31.41,31.414,31.4142,…
From a computational point of view, the selection of the sequence matters because sequences that converges quicker will yield a better approximation. In the above, we can bound the error of ∣xk−2∣≤10−k, so the relative error of the kth approximation is bounded above by 1−b10−k. Doing a bit of quick and dirty work (using a first order approximation of bx=xlogb+O(x2), and let δk denote the relative error using the kth approximation, then for errors of the form 1−bf(k) δk≈∣f(k)logb∣
For the sequence that adds in an extra decimal term each time, we can arbitrarily guarantee m digits of accuracy in decimal point by allowing 10−m≈10−klog(b)⟹k≈m+loglogb
More interestingly, the following rational sequence approximating 2=limkxk where the sequence is described by the recurrence xk+1=2xkxk2+2 x1=23 converges quite rapidly. In fact, within the region xk∈(1,2), it can be shown that ∣2−xk∣≤21(22−1)2k so here, to get m digits in decimal, you would only need to compute the k=log2(m)−log2log10(2−12), which is super quick!
Log in to reply
This is truly astounding and answers my question completely. Thank you very much!
We can write b2=e2logb, from which it follows that if b>0, the resulting function is well defined on the reals. When b=0, then it is reasonable to interpret 02 as the limiting value of f(x)=0x as x→2, which is of course 0.
The interesting that happens is when b<0. Can we formulate an axiomatically consistent interpretation of the function g(b)=b2 for b<0? Can we do so for non-real b? The above suggests employing the complex logarithm: logz=log∣z∣+iargz+2πik,k∈Z, where argz is the complex argument of z; i.e., the angle that z makes with the positive real axis in the complex plane.
With this in mind, we observe that for general complex b, the expression b2 is a set of complex numbers. We can choose a particular branch for this multivalued function to make it well-defined, but the result will contain a branch cut, across which the value of the function will be discontinuous.
Log in to reply
Amazing! Thank you very much!
Log in to reply
god bless