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.
The equation ( 2 ) p = p has the solution p = 4 as well. Why is the answer 2 rather than 4?
Log in to reply
Oh! Thank you for raising this question.
I was lucky that the poser didn't head the multiple choices with 'four'!
Calculating the first few approximations of the power tower certainly suggests that it converges to 2, but I can't find an easy way to show this analytically.
I think four can be ruled out as a possible solution because the maximum possible value of a convergent power tower is e.
As it stands my solution is incomplete. Can someone with more analytical muscle fill in the the gaps?
Log in to reply
Consider the increasing exponential function f ( x ) = ( 2 ) x , with the fixed points 2 and 4, where f ( x ) = x . We know that f ( x ) > x when x < 2 since f ( x ) is convex.
Define a sequence recursively by x 0 = 2 and x n + 1 = f ( x n ) . Our task is to find the limit of x n as n goes to infinity; this limit will be the value of the power tower, by definition.
We can show by induction that x n < 2 for all n . Indeed, x 0 < 2 , and x n < 2 implies that x n + 1 = f ( x n ) < f ( 2 ) = 2 . Since x n is an increasing function bounded by 2, it has a limit L . Since the limit must be a fixed point, by continuity of f ( x ) , we have L = 2 .
This somewhat abstract proof can be illustrated nicely with a cobweb, as @Agnishom Chattopadhyay did here .
As Mr Macgregor points out, my countryman Leonhard P. Euler has done all this work for us a long time ago, but it is fun to figure it out by ourselves.
It has ambigous solution :v
Log in to reply
No, 4 isn't a solution, but one has to explain why.
Log in to reply
How about you, Sir? Don't you know?
Log in to reply
@Resha Dwika Hefni Al-Fahsi – The issue is discussed here , for 3 instead of 4, but the reasoning is the same.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
By substituting the equation into itself (!) we get
( 2 ) p = p
and by inspection, (or by trying out the suggested solutions) p = 2
Note that we can only get going on this problem by assuming that the power tower converges. Euler showed that this is so provided that the bricks of the tower lie between e − e and e e 1 .
In our case the bricks are 2 which is just beneath the upper limit for convergence.