I am thinking of a number.
If I multiply this number by itself, it becomes larger than the previous number.
If I multiply this new number again by the original number, it becomes smaller than all the previous 2 numbers.
If I multiply this new number again by the original number, it becomes larger than all the previous 3 numbers.
If I multiply this new number again by the original number, it becomes smaller than all the previous 4 numbers.
If I multiply this new number again by the original number, it becomes _________ than all the previous 5 numbers.
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.
That's incorrect. x = -1 does not satisfy this condition.
Log in to reply
I changed my solution. Please let me know if it is OK now.
Log in to reply
It's not complete. Why can't the number be greater than or equal to -1 as well?
Log in to reply
@Pi Han Goh – Please check over my solution when you have a chance. I haven't done very many solutions yet, so am still learning.
Log in to reply
@Richard Costen – Right. This is a correct and rigorous approach. Well done!
I would have written it in a cleaner manner:
From the second sentence, we get x 2 > x , so x < 0 and/or x > 1 is true only.
From the third sentence, we get x 3 < x and x 3 < x 2 . So x < − 1 and/or 0 < x < 1 only.
Comparing the 2 statements I've written above shows that x < − 1 can only be true.
By checking the 4th and 5th sentence indeed shows that x 4 > x , x 4 > x 2 , x 4 > x 3 and x 5 < x , x 5 < x 2 , x 5 < x 3 , x 5 < x 4 are all true.
So this verifies that x < − 1 only. In the end, we just have to show that x 6 is larger than x , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 , x 5 . And we're done!
Please write more solutions! It's uncommon to see complete solutions for the community and I'm certain many people would be appreciative of your writeup~
This problem is solvable only for a negative value of the original number, because multiplication of a positive number by itself would only result in the product becoming larger consecutively. Let the required number be A, where A < -1.
Hence, Multiplication of A with itself = A multiplied by A = A^(2)
Here this number is positive because multiplication of two negative quantities always give a positive product, i.e. (-a) multiplied by (-b) = ab
Again, multiplication of A^2 with A ( the original number) = A^(2) multiplied by A = A^(3).
In this case, A^(2) was positive, but A was negative. Multiplication of one negative and one positive number will always give a negative number, i.e. (a) multiplied by (-b) = -ab
So, for any odd number of times A is multiplied by itself, the product will be negative, hence smaller than all the previous numbers. Again, for any even number of times A is multiplied by itself, the product will be positive, hence larger than all the previous numbers.
Therefore, when A was multiplied by itself 6 times, the product was larger than the previous 5.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Each number has a larger absolute value but opposite sign. Therefore the sequence becomes larger, smaller, larger, smaller, etc. than all previous numbers. As Shadman said, the original number must be negative for the number to become larger, then smaller, then larger, etc. Also, for the number to be larger (or smaller) than all the previous numbers, the absolute value of the value must increase as each multiplication is performed. This only happens if the absolute value of the original number is greater than 1 , or "number < -1". If the absolute value of the number is less than 1, the value will decrease each time, as in 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25. Therefore the original number is negative and less than -1 . (E.g. -1.1 x -1.1 = 1.21; 1.21 x -1.1 = -1.331; -1.331 x -1.1 = 1.4641) Here is a completely different solution: \DeclareMathOperator min m i n \DeclareMathOperator max m a x Let the original number be x . ∴ x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 and hopefully x 6 > < > < > x m i n ( x , x 2 ) m a x ( x , x 2 , x 3 ) m i n ( x , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ) m a x ( x , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 , x 5 ) x 2 > x ⟹ x 2 − x > 0 ⟹ x ( x − 1 ) > 0 ⟹ x < 0 or x > 1 x 3 < m i n ( x , x 2 ) ⟹ x 3 < x (since x 2 > x ) ⟹ x 3 − x < 0 ⟹ x ( x + 1 ) ( x − 1 ) < 0 ⟹ x < − 1 or 0 < x < 1 ∴ x < − 1 (combining these intervals with those from the previous line) x 4 > m a x ( x , x 2 , x 3 ) ⟹ x 4 > x 2 ⟹ x 4 − x 2 > 0 ⟹ x 2 ( x + 1 ) ( x − 1 ) > 0 ⟹ x < − 1 or x > 1 ⟹ x < − 1 x 5 < m i n ( x , x 2 , x 3 , x 4 ) ⟹ x 5 < x 3 ⟹ x 5 − x 3 < 0 ⟹ x 3 ( x + 1 ) ( x − 1 ) < 0 ⟹ x < − 1 or 0 < x < 1 ⟹ x < − 1 . thus proving that only numbers less than -1 will satisfy the conditions. The next in the sequence will be x 6 > m a x ( . . . ) .