This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
In above calculation, (2^987) can be written as [ (2^986) + (2^986) ] ???
because it also shall solve the question [ (2^986) + (2^986) ] - (2^986) = (2^986) (2^986) = (2^986)
So can it be said, 3^4 - 3^3 = 3^3 ( but through calculator we can check that this is wrong), 54 is not equal to 27
So above calculation is only possible if;
Condition 1: When the base is (2)
Condition 2: Power of positive number is one greater than negative number power
Correct me if i am missing basic concept of mathematics !!!
You are correct, but notice that 54 = 2(27) = 2(3^3)
Using the method you used for the first problem to solve the second problem, you would have to consider that 3^4 = 3(3^3) = 3^3+3^3+3^3
so 3^4-3^3 = 3^3+3^3+3^3-3^3 = 3^3+3^3 = 2(3^3)
Thank you. Most explanations are over my head as I only did high school basic math and was a screw off in school although math was easy for me. I have to clarify by asking my brother who was not a screw off and majored in math and physics.
A James Gibson: Su claridad complica el entendimiento. 2^987 - 2^986 , factorizando 2^986, tenemos: 2^986 (2^(987-976) - 2^(986-986)) = 2^986 (2^1 - 2^0) = 2^986 (2 - 1) = 2^986 (1) = 2^986 no es más complicado que esto, simplemente propiedades de exponentes y listo.
That was how I approached it as well. I reduced it to 2(2^986)-2^986, let 2^986=x then 2x-x=1x and since x=2^986 that is the final answer.
Relevant wiki: Rules of Exponents
2 9 8 7 − 2 9 8 6 = 2 9 8 6 ( 2 1 − 1 ) = 2 9 8 6 ( 2 − 1 ) = 2 9 8 6 .
Simple approach
Where did the 2-1 came from . I understand as this (2^1)2^986 - 2^986= 2 I'm I wrong ? Please correct me.
By factoring out the common term 2^986. If that's not clear, let 2^986=y,then
2^987-2^986= 2*2^296-2^296= 2y-y= y(2-1)=y=2^296
By factoring ...
2^986(2-1) = 2^986
Ur solution is wrong since you subtracted 2^986 (2)-2^986 and you came up with 2... it is wrong ... you cant subtract two numbers if it has multiplicative property.... 2(2^986)
according to you 4-1=4; because 4=4
1then: (4)
1-1=4
it is not like that. First you got the equation which is correct but according to maths first you should do the multiplication and then subtraction, the reverse is not true.
in this problem:
(2^1)2^986 - 2^986
take common 2^986 and you got:
2^986(2-1)
according to maths first solve the bracket
2^986(1)
now multiply
2^986 .............answer
one word : simplicity
This AdWords is wrong I looked it up online the 987 And 986 are how many 0 there after the 2 so the answer is 2
That's wrong. With every number on the exponent, that's multiplying it by 2. If you're using b x 10^g where b=2 and g=986, then it is 986 0s after 2. That's not the case. We're multiplying 2 by itself 986 times, and once more to get the other term. That means 2^987 is just 2(2^986) and as we all know 2(b)-b=b
It's a fundamental property of exponents, X^(y+1) - X^(y)=X^(y) Given X and y are not 0 or 1.
Sorry, I realize now that this doesn't work in all instances, only if X and Y are equal to 2.
2^987-986=2^1=2
That's 2 2 9 7 ÷ 2 2 9 6
Hi, This is not the solution to this problem and as a matter of fact,this is wrong.Please check the other solutions to avoid confusion.
If it would be like 2^987 / 2^986 = 2^(987-986) = 2
only possible when multiplication or division!
Esto solo (only) aplica al producto de exponentes, así: (2^a)(2^b) = 2^(a + b).
2^987 - 2^986 = 2^(986 + 1) - 2^986 = 2^986 * 2 - 2^986 = 2^986(2 - 1) = 2^986
This is How to Say correct.... I would like know Explain
2 9 8 7 − 2 9 8 6
= 2 9 8 6 ( 2 − 1 )
= 2 9 8 6 ( 1 )
= 2 9 8 6
2^987 - 2^986 = 2^986(2 - 1) = 2^986 * 1 = 2^986
2^987-2^986=2^986(2-1)=2^986 ans
simple logic - a number is double of the number so the number will be the number itself.
We can express these as 2^286(2-1) that is 2 ^286 Ans
Hit and Trial Method 2^6 - 2^5 = 64-32= 32 [2^5] 2^7 - 2^6 = 128-64= 64 [2^6] Therefore, 2^987 - 2^986= 2^986
Let x = 986, so the problem is 2^(x+1) - 2^x, so problem is 2^x(2^1 - 2^0) = 2^x(2-1) = 2^x QED
The values of the powers of 2 from 2^0 upwards are 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128, 256 etc. Take any pair, 2^N and 2^(N-1), e.g. (128 and 64) and you will notice the difference between them (128-64) is always the smaller number 2^(N-1).
2 2 8 7 - 2 2 8 6 - Given
2 × 2 2 8 6 - 2 2 8 6 -Factor out 2
2 2 8 6 - Subtract like terms
2^986 Let x be 2^986 So 2^987 can be factor as 2(2^986) Since x=2^986 So 2x-x=x x=2^986
Each multiplication in an exponent 2^x is a multiplication n(2), which is the same as n + n.
2^2 = 2(2) = 2 + 2 = 4
2^3 = 4(2) = 4 + 4 = 8
2^4 = 8(2) = 8 + 8 = 16
...
2^987 = 2^986(2) = 2^986 + 2^986
2^987 = 2^986 + 2^986
2^987 - 2^986 = 2^986
So,
(2^n+1) - (2^n) = 2^n
2 9 8 7 is 2 9 8 6 × 2 , so we're basically halving the double.
Do you agree that 2^987is double the number of 2^986.Then any number which is subtracted from the double of its number is going to be the same number. So 2^987-2^986 is 2^986
2^987 - 2^986 = 2^986.(2^1 - 1) = 2^986.(2 - 1) = 2^986.1 = 2^986
Exponent Theorem 1.0 (I am not sure if someone has claimed or proved this) can solve this.
- The I'm-certain-not-everyone-will-agree-with "proof" can be accessed through https://brilliant.org/discussions/thread/exponent-theorem-10.
The theorem states that b n − b n − 1 = b n − 1 ( b − 1 ) .
By substitution,
2 9 8 7 − 2 9 8 7 − 1 = 2 9 8 7 − 1 ( 2 − 1 )
2 9 8 7 − 2 9 8 6 = 2 9 8 6 × 1
By multiplication identity property,
2 9 8 7 − 2 9 8 6 = 2 9 8 6
2^987 - 2^986 = 2^986(2 - 1) = 2^986 x1 = 2^986
=(2^n)-(2^n-1) =(2^n)-(2^n 2^-1) =(2^n)-(2^n)/2 =(2(2^n)-(2^n))/2 =(2^n)/2 =(2^n)2^-1 =2^(n-1) here n=987 hence 2^(987-1)=2^986
for example, 2^4 - 2^3 = 2^3 2^7-2^6=128-64=2^6 in the same way 2^987-2^986=2^986
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Relevant wiki: Rules of Exponents
I have decided to post a more detailed solution which is meant to explain how we got to the answer we did to anybody who is confused by, or has no clue how people came up with answers that just say something like: 2 9 8 7 − 2 9 8 6 = 2 9 8 6 ⋅ ( 2 − 1 ) = 2 9 8 6 .
If the solution I just used as an example makes sense to you, then this post is not for you, but if you are like many of the people who have asked me how on earth you get from 2 9 8 7 − 2 9 8 6 to 2 9 8 6 ⋅ ( 2 − 1 ) then please read on.
We will use what's known as factoring to solve this problem. First, lets use the rules of exponents to create "like terms" which we can factor out. We know as a rule of exponents that a b ⋅ a c = a b + c . so using this rule I'm going to split up 2^987 into this: 2 9 8 6 ⋅ 2 1 .
Now the problem reads as follows: ( 2 2 8 6 ⋅ 2 1 ) − 2 9 8 6 which is simply ( 2 9 8 6 ⋅ 2 ) − 2 9 8 6 .
At this point, you may already understand how to solve this; if not, I'll solve this 2 different ways. The first is the commonly accepted way and the second will just be for anybody who needs an even simpler approach.
The first way we factor out the common term: 2 9 8 6 . That means you essentially divide the entire thing by 2 9 8 6 and then multiply it by 2 9 8 6 again so that the net effect is no change. Now you have: 2 9 8 6 ⋅ 1 = 2 9 8 6 .
The second way is just an easier way to show the solution for anybody who didn't quite grasp the first solution. One really cool concept of a variable is that you can set it equal to anything you want it to be, in this case a big exponent like 2 9 8 6 is what makes this problem hard to solve for some people. Let's simply replace all the 2 9 8 6 we see with a variable, n . Then, we have ( n ⋅ 2 ) − n = 2 n − n = n = 2 9 8 6 .
So by replacing something that looked like a rather hard to grasp number with a variable, we were able to more easily reduce the problem. Please note in special cases, this method may not quite work. This was just for clarity and to show people a new way of looking at things that may be easier to understand. Rest assured that if you do encounter one of these special cases, you will likely understand math well enough to not need this approach.
Hopefully this solution was a little more clear than the other ones and helped somebody out there to understand how we got the answer we did.