A = 1 0 0 1 0 0 , B = 1 0 1 1 0 1 Which is greater, A or B ?
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.
Side note: One of the fun alternative definitions of e is the value that maximizes x x 1 ; that is, exactly where the derivative is 0.
Typo: f'(x) > 0 should be f'(x) < 0.
Log in to reply
It is correct for x<e . @Gauthier Muguerza .
Log in to reply
@Sambhrant Sachan Indeed, my bad ! But x1 = 101 and x2 = 100 are clearly greater than e.
101.00990099>100.01. Problem wasn't very clear to me.
Log in to reply
Could you please explain what was the issue, so that we can edit the problem for clarity?
Dude... 100 * 1/100 is 1... and 101 * 1/101 is also one. The two are the same. They are both one, and ergo... they are equal. Also... no idea how am I suppose to comment on the problem. The button is hidden or not there... and still no clue how to do new lines / carriage returns in Latex. So sorry if the comment is in the wrong place... there literally was nothing on my display to comment properly... so if you guys don't like it... eh... well, nothing can be done about it.
Log in to reply
Gosh... gonna try to find that box now...
You might find this helpful as a LaTeX guide . Alternately, you could use codecogs to do this.
Please refrain from using profanity on Brilliant.
Most of the approaches use calculus, because that's how most people are first introduced to this idea of x x 1 . In this case, we can use the binomial theorem directly:
We want to compare 1 0 0 1 0 1 with 1 0 1 1 0 0 . They look very similar, especially if we write 1 0 1 1 0 0 = ( 1 0 0 + 1 ) 1 0 0 . Now, let's see what we get:
1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 = ( 1 0 0 + 1 ) 1 0 0 = 1 0 0 × 1 0 0 1 0 0 = 1 0 0 1 0 0 = 1 0 0 1 0 0 + ( 1 1 0 0 ) × 1 0 0 9 9 + 1 0 0 × 1 0 0 9 9 + ( 2 1 0 0 ) × 1 0 0 9 8 + 1 0 0 2 × 1 0 0 9 8 + … + … + ( 9 9 1 0 0 ) × 1 0 0 1 + 1 0 0 9 9 × 1 0 0 + 1
Now, can you tell which number is larger?
Can you generalize it to all positive integers
n
? For which integers
n
do we have
n
n
1
>
(
n
+
1
)
n
+
1
1
? (Note: Be carefull of the +1!)
Is 100 ^101 greater?
Log in to reply
Yes. The answer to this problem is that 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 > 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 , which implies that 1 0 0 1 0 1 > 1 0 1 1 0 0 .
Do you see how my solution allows us to reach that conclusion? Hint: Compare each column. Watch out for the +1.
Log in to reply
It is very helpful when people use a better typeface than "Brilliant" uses. I was confused, and read the problem as 100 x 1/100 = 1, as 101 x 1/101 = 1
It is simpler 100^{1/100} ? 101^{1/101} => 100^{101/100} ? 101^{101/101} => 100^{1+0.01} ? 101 => 100+100^0.01 ? 101 => 100^0.01 ? 1 => 100^0.01 > 100^0 => 100^{1/100} > 101^{1/101}
We want to compare 1 0 0 1 0 1 with 1 0 1 1 0 0 .
True. And you could also restate it as comparing 1 0 0 with 1 . 0 1 1 0 0 . So what has been shown here is equivalent, in financial terms, to saying that a one-time increase of 9900% is greater than 100 increases of 1% each. (Quite a lot greater as it happens.)
Relevant wiki: Logarithms
Let f ( x ) = ln x 1 / x = x ln x . Then f ′ ( x ) = x 2 1 − ln x . Since ln x > 1 , we have f ′ ( x ) < 0 on the interval x ∈ [ 1 0 0 , 1 0 1 ] . Thus f ( x ) decreases on this interval; and if the logarithm decreases, so does the original function x 1 / x .
See also this similar problem .
A = 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 = 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 + 1 0 0 1 = 1 0 + 1 0 0 1
B = 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 = 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 + 1 0 1 1 = 1 0 + 1 0 1 1
1 0 0 1 > 1 0 1 1
Here is another solution that does not require calculus:
A and B are both positive, so a valid (in)equality between A and B is also valid between A 1 0 1 and B 1 0 1 . (Claim 1)
B 1 0 1 = 1 0 1 ( 1 0 1 1 ∗ 1 0 1 ) = 1 0 1 A 1 0 1 = A ∗ A 1 0 0 = 1 0 0 A
A 1 0 0 = 1 0 0 and 1 . 0 1 1 0 0 < 1 0 0 † , so A > 1 . 0 1 .
Therefore, A 1 0 1 > ( 1 0 0 ∗ 1 . 0 1 = 1 0 1 = B 1 0 1 ) and, from Claim 1, A > B
† If this is not intuitive, consider that 1 . 0 1 x is the same as x + 0 . 0 1 x .
So if x < 2 , then 1 . 0 1 x < ( x + 0 . 0 1 ∗ 2 ) .
Note that 1 . 0 1 n + 1 = 1 . 0 1 ∗ 1 . 0 1 n . So as long as 1 . 0 1 n < 2 , 1 . 0 1 n + 1 < 1 . 0 1 n + 0 . 0 2 .
Therefore, we can say that 1 . 0 1 5 0 (think 1 . 0 1 1 + 4 9 ) is less than 1 . 0 1 + 0 . 0 2 ∗ 4 9 = 1 . 9 9 .
1 . 0 1 1 0 0 = ( 1 . 0 1 5 0 ) 2 < ( 1 . 9 9 ) 2 < 1 0 0 .
Q.E.D.
Very nice. The sequence of steps is slightly convoluted, which makes it hard for someone to understand at a glance. Can you help to clean it up slightly? Let me know if you would like assistance.
Log in to reply
Thanks. I'll try to see if I can revise for better flow and clarity. I'm still fairly new to solution writing, so I welcome any suggestions/advice you have.
Log in to reply
The confusing part was how the logic "jumped all over". Sometimes you were working forwards, sometimes backward, and sometimes sideways. The direct way to write up what you had is:
⇔ ⇔ ⇔ A > B 1 0 0 A = A 1 0 1 > B 1 0 1 = 1 0 1 A > 1 . 0 1 1 0 0 = A 1 0 0 > ( 1 . 0 1 ) 1 0 0 (explain)
And then explain why the last line is true using that nice inequality bounding in your boxed paragraph.
This makes it clear to the reader how the steps logically flow from each other, instead of having them hunt down what you intended to say.
My solution is not a proof but just an intuitive observation.
A > B
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 > 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
1 0 0 1 0 1 > 1 0 1 1 0 0
1 0 1 ln ( 1 0 0 ) > 1 0 0 ln ( 1 0 1 )
1 0 0 ln ( 1 0 0 ) + ln ( 1 0 0 ) > 1 0 0 ( ln ( 1 0 0 ) + ϵ )
1 0 0 ln ( 1 0 0 ) + ln ( 1 0 0 ) > 1 0 0 ln ( 1 0 0 ) + 1 0 0 ϵ
ln ( 1 0 0 ) > 1 0 0 ϵ
ϵ is insignificant so it's a very good guess that the inequality holds.
One good way to quantify how insignificant e is, is to use the taylor series - error bounds . For example, even taking just the first term (IE linear approximation) and knowing that the curve is concave, we can conclude that ln 1 0 1 − ln 1 0 0 < 1 × d x d ln x ∣ 1 0 0 = 1 × 1 0 0 1 = 0 . 0 1 . Thus, the inequality follows because ln ( 1 0 0 ) > 1 > 1 0 0 ϵ .
function f(x) = x^(1/x) reaches its max for x = e, if x tends to + infinity, it tends to 1 ! Not defined for x = 0. Has probably a saddle point somewhere e < x < + infinity.
Log(B)=log(1.01•100)/101=log(1.01)+log100/101....log(A)=log(100)/100. Log(B)/log(A)=(log(1.01)+log(100)/log100) (100/101)=(100+50 log1.01)/101. Log for base 10. So we have 3 cases log1.01=.02 or >.02or<.02 by using roots of # 10 ........ 10^.5=3.16227,10^.25=1.7782,10^.125=1.3335, 10^.0625=1.75478, 10^.03125=1.0746, 10^.015625=1.0366 so log1.01<.02. So 100+50*log1.01<101 so log(B)<log(A) so A>β######
It is simpler
1 0 0 1 / 1 0 0 ? 1 0 1 1 / 1 0 1 = >
1 0 0 1 0 1 / 1 0 0 ? 1 0 1 1 0 1 / 1 0 1 = >
1 0 0 1 + 0 . 0 1 ? 1 0 1 = >
1 0 0 ∗ 1 0 0 0 . 0 1 ? 1 0 1 = >
1 0 0 0 . 0 1 ? 1 + 0 . 0 1 = >
l n ( 1 0 0 0 . 0 1 ) ? l n ( 1 + 0 . 0 1 ) = >
0 . 0 1 ∗ l n ( 1 0 0 ) ? 0 . 0 1 + O ( 1 0 − 4 ) = >
l n ( 1 0 0 ) ? 1 + O ( 0 . 0 1 )
since l n ( 1 0 0 ) > l n ( 3 4 ) > l n ( e 4 ) = 4 = >
1 0 0 1 / 1 0 0 > 1 0 1 1 / 1 0 1
You have to be careful with O notation. Saying that the function f ( x ) = O ( x ) doesn't mean that f ( x ) ≤ x everywhere.
I didn't want to resort to logs, because it's not obvious how it could be extended to a general n . Also, at what point does your proof break down when comparing 2 1 / 2 , 3 1 / 3 ?
Log in to reply
Generalisation was not my goal. Above solution on f ( x ) = x 1 / X is perfect.
This specific problem can be solved applying ( ⋅ ) 6 to both sides.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Consider f ( x ) = x x 1 f ′ ( x ) = x 1 / x ( x 2 1 − x 2 ln x ) f ′ ( x ) > 0 ∀ x < e ∀ x 1 > x 2 x 1 , x 2 > e f ( x 1 ) < f ( x 2 ) for x 1 = 1 0 1 & x 2 = 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 < 1 0 0 1 0 0 1