2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3 = ?
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.
I noticed a pattern. If 2^4 - 2^3 = 2^3 and 2^3 - 2^2 = 2^2, assuming the pattern continued, so long as the statement was in the form 2^x - 2^(x-1), the answer would be 2^(x-1). In more general form, n^x - n^(x-1) = (n-1)n^(x-1).
Log in to reply
think it only works for 2 though. So no 'n' form. 3^3 - 3^2 = 18 . not 9.
Log in to reply
it still work, look 3^3-3^2=3^2(3)-3^2=3^2(3-1)=3^2(2)=9x2=18
Very logical point.
na cancel that. you've got it in there. good work
I'm chiming in just to elaborate on some of the explanations already given. It may seem obvious, but I hope my explanation -- the way that has helped me get what is going on -- helps others get it, too.
In this problem, simply realize that the second term is exactly half of -- one order of 2 less than -- the first term. Thus, when you're working with a base of 2, take any order of 2 and divide it in half and subtract that from the original number, the difference is, well, half, which is one order of 2 less. That's exactly what's going on here, and of course we can visualize that more easily when we use smaller numbers, e.g., ( 2 4 ) − ( 2 3 ) = 2 3 , o r ( 2 4 ) / 2 (i.e., 1 6 − 8 = 1 6 / 2 = 8 , the same value as the second term).
As others have pointed out, n x − n ( x − 1 ) = ( n − 1 ) ∗ n ( x − 1 ) only works when the base n is 2, in which case we're either doubling (incrementing the order of the exponent by one), or halving (decrementing the order of the exponent by one).
Its not working when the power is 1 and 0 when the value of n is anything other than 2
Log in to reply
I believe it is always valid now, because I checked the equation using the distributive property of multiplication, paying particular attention to the exponent rules for multiplication. n^x - n^(x-1) = (n-1) * n^(x-1) = n^x - n^(x-1) Try checking the equation itself by the distributive property of multiplication. Anyway, this means that it is valid for n other than 2. Say n= 0 and x = 1. (Though really, n and x can be any two numbers, positive or negative.) 0^1 - 0^0 = (0-1) * 0^0 0 - 0 = -1 * 0 0 = 0 Say n= 3 and x = 1. 3^1 - 3^0 = (3-1) * 3^0 3 - 1 = 2 * 1 2 = 2 Say n= 3 and x = 0. 3^0 - 3^(-1) = (3-1) * 3^(-1) 1 - 0.3333333 = 2 * 0.3333333 0.6666666 = 0.6666666
Log in to reply
@Scholastica Okoye – Mehn, don't test Nigerians
The pattern only valid for n=2. Not valid for n>2
Log in to reply
I believe it is always valid now, because I checked the equation using the distributive property of multiplication, paying particular attention to the exponent rules for multiplication. n^x - n^(x-1) = (n-1) * n^(x-1) = n^x - n^(x-1) Try checking the equation itself by the distributive property of multiplication. Anyway, this means that it is valid for n>2. Say n= 5 and x = 9. (Though really, n and x can be any two numbers, positive or negative.) 5^9 - 5^8 = (5-1) * 5^8 1953125 - 390625 = 4 * 390625 1562500 = 1562500
Log in to reply
@Scholastica Okoye – You just showed that your theory for it always working for "n" is incorrect as 1562500 does not equal 5^8. 5^8 = 390,625.
I also do same way
Why yall so smart
Me too. Cheers.
I did the same thing.
I used the samething =)
I understand you're searching for patterns, but how did you arrive at the conclusion of the existence of said pattern to begin with?
How can you ’assume’ that the pattern continues?
Log in to reply
Because algebra is the mathematics of patterns. An algebraic expression is, for all intents and purposes, the mathematical solution to a pattern observed around us.
Besides, mathematicians have been using that same technique for centuries. When looking for a pattern in a group of large numbers, instead look for a pattern in a similar group of smaller numbers.
Log in to reply
@Jason Carr – Its not always true..is it ?
How do you prove it?
Log in to reply
@Victor Loh – mathematical proof by induction
@Victor Loh – you test it.
Thanks for the info..any books that u would recommend in order to learn this type TRICKS..
Me too noticed the same :D
I did the same
base 2 so 2014 is twice as big as 2013. so if 2014 is (2013 + 2013) - 2013.
2^4 - 2^3 = 16-8=8 which is equal 2^3 :D :D so take on it the solution it'd be 2^2013
great solution
Brilliant Victor. I took lots of time to realize
let 2^2013 = x, so,2^2014 - 2^2013 =2*(2^2013)-(2^2013)= 2x-x=x=2^2013
this amazing
simple if you think correct way
GREAT TRICK.
=2(2)^{2014}^{+}^{2013} =4^{4054182} =16216728 F.A.
how 2^2014=2^2013 (2)
Log in to reply
Because 2 is the multiple. Lets say you have 2^2 then 2^3 is twice as big. First one is 2x2 second one is 2x2x2 so (2x2)*2. Its twice as big. So if you have 5^25 then 5^26 is 5 times as big.
=2^(2014-2013) =2^(1) =2^1 =2 Why not answer should be 2
Log in to reply
You only subtract the actual powers when you divide the numbers
gud solution
FROM WHERE NO.1 HAS COME
Log in to reply
2014 2013 2 _ 2
2013 2013 2 x 2 _ 2
2013 2013 2 (2 - 1) [ where we taken 2 as common. 2013 x 1 = 2013 2 2 this is how we get 1 and 2013 x 2 = 2014.] 2 2
so, 2013 (2 - 1) 2013 2 = 2
HOPE U GOT IT :)
There is always an imaginary one for every whole number there is an imagenary one as its denominator, as its exponent at times to make a negative number work for a solution>>have peace with that idea or it will drive you crazy.
Log in to reply
Wise words "have peace with that idea or it will drive you crazy."
By taking common
X= (2^2014) - (2^2013) X= (2 * 2^2013) - (1*2^2013) X=(2^2013) *(2 - 1) X= 2^2013
that exactly what I did
a wonderful solution
the last line can be clarified by taking 2^2013 common. When you do that you have 2^2013 * ((2*1) - 1)
general solution is (2^(n+1))-(2^n)= 2^n
Nice question, i have solved it
2^x - 2^y = 2^y . 2^{x - y} - 2^y = 2^y (2^{x - y} - 1)
2^2013 r8 answer
The bases are equal (in terms of absolute value), so you just scratch the bases and subtract the exponents to get 1.
nice one :)
i hate to say this.. but i agree! well played
2 raised 2013
my ans is 2
wrong ans because when two base are same we can take one them. 5^3-5^2=100 . only applicable for 2
Following the laws of bodmas this is incorrect as the answer would be 2^1=2 there is no direct instruction and therefore can only assume to complete this by bodmas
How did u get 1?
totally illogical solution! 2^2013*(2-1)=2^2013 * (0)=0
it always will be equal to zero.
2'(2014-2013)aisa karke answer sirf 2'1 qui nahi
Is there a name to this technique, so that I may search it up online?
If I would try this equation like that below, 2014 ln 2 - 2013 ln 2 is it gonna right?
How did you get the (2-1)?
ONLY EASY SOLUTION . THANKS VICTOR .
But when I give 2^2013 on my calculator shows Math Error. Why?
Log in to reply
The number is insanely huge. Your calculator cannot handle it.
I couldn't tell you. I never took nor did I ever plan to take algebra, trigonometry, calculus, physics or anything remotely close to it. Never wanted it, never needed it and never used any of it in 56 years, not going to start now.
Thumbs up!!
I couldn't tell you. I never took, nor did I ever plan to take algebra, trig, calculus or anything else above basic math. Never needed it, never used it or anything remotely similar.
Log in to reply
Thanks for confirming the stereotype that all Americans are stupid.
why we don't solve it like this
2^2014 -2^2013 = X
2014 ln(2) - 2013 ln(2) = ln (X)
ln(2) (2014 -2013 ) = ln(X)
ln(2) = ln(x) so X=2
Log in to reply
Wrong answer sequence, When you take ln of an equation you have to take ln or the whole side once,so: Ln(2^2014-2^2013) is not equal to ln(2^2014)-ln(2^2013)
why we don't solve it like this 2^2014 -2^2013 = X 2014 ln(2) - 2013 ln(2) = ln (X) ln(2) (2014 -2013 ) = ln(X) ln(2) = ln(x) so X=2
Log in to reply
the logarithm concept is totally wrong
if 2^2014 -2^2013 = X, then ln(X)=(2014ln(2))/(2013ln(2)).
Take a simpler case, such as 2 3 − 2 2 , which equals 2 2 . For any non-zero positive integer n , 2 n − 2 n − 1 = 2 n − 1 , so 2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3 is 2 2 0 1 3 .
This answer is more logic !Thank you for sharing~
Great explanation
Is there a name to this property? I'd like to look further into it.
2 2 0 1 4 is simply twice of 2 2 0 1 3 . Now if we remove 2 2 0 1 3 from 2 2 0 1 4 , what we have is, is 2 2 0 1 3
That is the way i thought too. Exemple: take 2¹¹ - 2¹º. If 2¹º is 1024, 2¹¹ is 1024 x 2=2048 ... 2048 (2¹¹) - 1024 (2¹º) = 1024
but that is just in 2's case. what if the base was something positive but a non-2 integer?
Log in to reply
The general formula would be a n + 1 − a n = a . a n − a n = ( a − 1 ) a n . In this specific problem a = 2 .
2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3 = ?
2 2 0 1 4 = 2 2 0 1 3 + 2 2 0 1 3
2 2 0 1 3 + 2 2 0 1 3 − 2 2 0 1 3 = 2 2 0 1 3
Rules of indices: x y = 2 x y − 1
Same to you
You imagine the minimum amount 2 2^4-2^3=? 2^4=16 & 2^3=8 16-8=8 8=2^3 2^4-2^3=2^3 So any count following this pattern So 2^2014 - 2^2013=2^2013
Seemingly, you could half 2 to 2014 powers, since multiplying by two is just doubling (2 squared=4, 2 cubed=8), meaning you could figure this out by knowing what 2 to 2014 powers. Of course, a number that high could be difficult to work with even for what would normally be a simple sum, most notably when using division, being usually quite easy.
2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3
Factorise out 2 2 0 1 3 from both terms:
= 2 2 0 1 3 ( 2 1 − 1 )
Left with final answer:
= 2 2 0 1 3 ( 1 ) = 2 2 0 1 3
As 2^2014=(2^2013)*2=2^2013+2^2013 That means 2^2014-2^2013=2^2013
k(maybe 2013) is a number and k+1(maybe 2014) is your successor
so,
2^(k+1) - 2^k =
2^k*2^1 - 2^k =
2^k + 2^k - 2^k =
2^k
2^2014-2^2013 =2^2013(2-1) =2^2013
Apply equivalent problem of simple units
I dont understand why ppl disscus some problems like that... not abe to solve some problems more difficult ?
If you want to try to difficult problems, click here
2^(n+1) - 2^n = (2^n)(2^1) - 2^n = (2^n)(2-1) = 2^n
x=2013
2^(x+1) - 2^x = 2^x • 2 - 2^x = 2^x • (2 - 1 ) = 2^x
2^x = 2^2013
Let 2 2 0 1 3 be x We know that, 2 × 2 2 0 1 3 = 2 2 0 1 4 [ a m × a n = a m + n ] ∴ 2 2 0 1 4 = 2 x ⇒ 2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3 = 2 x − x = x = 2 2 0 1 3
This one is quite easy but I think some people are over complicating things.
To get 2^{2014} you have to do 2X2^{2013}.
so if we put that in to our equation instead we get :
(2X2^{2013})-2^{2013}=2^{2013}
Good job with recognizing the exponents. They can be tricky at times.
2^2014 - 2^2013
2^2013(2) -2^2013
2^2013[2-1]
2^2013//
2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3 = 2 2 0 1 3 ( 2 1 − 2 0 ) = 2 2 0 1 3
So I apparently chose a really roundabout way of solving this, but I got there. Okay, so we know that 2^2013 is just (2^2014)/2. Substitute that in and find a common denominator to subtract, and you get ((2)(2^2014)-(2^2014))/2. So, ((2-1)(2^2014))/2, which simplifies to (2^2014)/2, which we said before was just 2^2013. :)
2^2014=2^2013*2^1
Which can be written as
2^2014=2^2013+2^2013
and hence
2^2014-2^2013 = 2^2013+2^2013-2^2013=>
2^2013...
2^2014-2^2013=(2^2013)(2-1)=2^2013
I considered it in the ideas of halves. 2^(n-1) is half of 2^n . Therefore, a whole minus half is half. 2^n - 2^(n-1) = 2^(n-1).
2014 2013 2013 2013 2014 2 =2 + 2 =2 ×2 = 2
2^2013 times 2 is 2^2014, so 2^2014-2^2013 = 2(2^2013)-2^2013 = 2^2013
I do't get it. How come you'll multiply it by 2?
2^2014- 2^2013 =2(2^2013)-(2^2013) let x=2^2013 therefore,the eq becomes 2x-x =x=2^2013
2^n+1 - 2^n is always equal to 2^n .
2^4-2^3=8=2^3 gives the pattern leads to2^2013
2^2014 = 2^2013 x 2 therefore 2(2^2013)-2^2013=X therfore 2^2013=X 2^2013
here X^n - X^(n-1) =X^(n-1) {X-1} =so X become 2, AND n become 2014 =2^2013 * {2 - 1} = 2^2013 ....................ANS
(2p1 2p2013-2 p2013)=2p2013(2-1)=2p2013
It's 2 not 2 to the 2013 power
Just calc unit place digit and eliminate the options
Similar to Victor: i just factored 2^2013(2^2 - 2) = 2^2013
if you calculate (using windows calculator) absolute value for 2^2014 then subtract 2^2013 the answer is 2^2013 !! Tedious big numbers here but with modern computers that can handle them why not nothing like this when i was at school 50 years ago
2^2014 - 2^2013 =2^2013 (2-1) =2^2013 (1) =2^2013
2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3 = 2 × ( 2 2 0 1 3 − 2 2 0 1 2 )
2 2 0 1 3 − 2 2 0 1 2 = 2 × ( 2 2 0 1 2 − 2 2 0 1 1 )
. . .
2 1 − 2 0 = 1
2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3 = 2 2 0 1 3 × ( 1 ) = 2 2 0 1 3
2^2014 - 2^2013 = 2^2013(2 - 1) = 2^2013
2^2014 - 2^2013 =2^2013(2) - 2^2013 =2^2013 (2 - 1) = 2^2013
2^2014 is a half from 2^2015 because 2^2015 multiply more than 2^2014 is one number two so 2^2014 is double of 2^2013. 1- 0.5 =0.5 . The answer is 2^2013
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
2 2 0 1 4 − 2 2 0 1 3
= 2 2 0 1 3 ( 2 ) − 2 2 0 1 3
= 2 2 0 1 3 ( 2 − 1 ) = 2 2 0 1 3 .