Can You Solve Without A Calculator?

Algebra Level 3

Evaluate

log 2 3 + log 3 4 + log 4 5 + log 5 6 . \lfloor \log_2 3 + \log_3 4 + \log_4 5 + \log_5 6 \rfloor.


The answer is 5.

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.

2 solutions

Pi Han Goh
Jul 15, 2017

We'll prove the upper bound first. Let L = log 2 3 + log 3 4 + log 4 5 + log 5 6 L = \log_2 3 + \log_3 4 + \log_4 5 + \log_5 6 , so we want to prove that L < 6 L<6 .

Let y = log x ( x + 1 ) > 1 y = \log_x (x+1)> 1 for x > 1 x>1 , then x y = x + 1 y ln x = ln ( x + 1 ) y x + ln x d y / d x = 1 x + 1 d y d x = ln x 1 / ( x + 1 ) y / x < ln x 1 / x y / x < 0. x^y = x + 1\quad \Rightarrow\quad y \ln x = \ln(x+1)\quad \Rightarrow\quad \dfrac yx +{\ln x} \cdot {dy/dx} = \dfrac1{x+1} \quad \Rightarrow \quad \dfrac{dy}{dx} = \dfrac{\ln x}{1/(x+1) - y/x} < \dfrac{\ln x}{1/x- y/x}< 0.

Thus y y is a decreasing function. Let y = f ( x ) y = f(x) , then L = f ( 2 ) + f ( 3 ) + f ( 4 ) + f ( 5 ) < f ( 2 ) + 3 f ( 3 ) L = f(2) + f(3) + f(4) + f(5) < f(2) + 3f(3) .

Because f ( 2 ) = log 2 3 < log 2 4 = 2 f(2) = \log_2 3 < \log_2 4 = 2 and 4 3 < 3 4 4 < 3 4 / 3 f ( 3 ) = log 3 4 < 4 3 4^3 < 3^4\Rightarrow 4 < 3^{4/3} \Rightarrow f(3) = \log_3 4 < \frac43 . Thus, L < f ( 2 ) + 3 f ( 3 ) < 2 + 3 ( 4 3 ) = 6 L < f(2) + 3f(3) < 2 + 3\left(\frac43\right) = 6 .

We'll prove that L > 5 L > 5 by reversing engineering the result found by applying the arithmetic mean geometric mean inequality . That is, we want to prove that L > 4 f ( 2 ) f ( 3 ) f ( 4 ) f ( 5 ) 4 = 4 log 2 6 4 > 5 L > 4\sqrt[4]{ f(2) \cdot f(3) \cdot f(4) \cdot f(5) } = 4\sqrt[4]{\log_2 6}> 5 .

Claim: 4 log 2 6 4 > 5 4\sqrt[4]{\log_2 6}> 5 .

Proof: Proving this claim is analogous to proving that 6 > 2 ( 5 / 4 ) 4 6 > 2^{(5/4)^4} , or equivalently 6 256 > 2 625 3 256 > 2 369 6^{256} > 2^{625} \Leftrightarrow 3^{256} > 2^{369} . This can be proven if we reverse engineer the inequality 3 2 > 2 3 ( 3 2 ) 125 > ( 2 3 ) 125 3 250 > 2 375 3 256 > 3 250 > 2 375 > 2 369 . 3^2 > 2^3 \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad (3^2)^{125} > (2^3)^{125} \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad 3^{250} > 2^{375} \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad 3^{256} > 3^{250} > 2^{375} > 2^{369} .

Hence, 5 < L < 6 5 < L < 6 . Our answer is 5 \boxed 5 .

Wow, nice solution.

Agnishom Chattopadhyay - 3 years, 11 months ago

For the first part, without showing that f ( x ) f(x) is a decreasing function, you can just bound log n ( n + 1 ) < 4 3 \log_n (n+1) < \frac{4}{3} for n 3 n \geq 3 . IE that ( n + 1 ) 3 < n 4 (n+1)^3 < n^4 .

Calvin Lin Staff - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Ah of course! Thanks!

Pi Han Goh - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

Wait, how do you show that (n+1)^3 <n^4 for n>= 3? Yes, this is true, but I don't see a natural way of proving it (no, I don't consider graphing as a natural way).

Pi Han Goh - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

@Pi Han Goh Here are some possible ways.

  1. Obviousness / by graphing / calculate the roots
  2. Show that ( n + 3 ) 4 [ ( n + 3 ) + 1 ] 3 = 0 (n+3)^4 - [(n+3) + 1 ]^3 = 0 has no positive roots since all of the coefficients are positive.
  3. Show it only for n = 3 , 4 , 5 n = 3, 4, 5 for this question.
  4. WTS ( 1 + 1 n ) 3 < n (1 + \frac{1}{n})^3 < n . The LHS is a decreasing function in n n and the RHS is an increasing function. Verify for n = 3 n=3 , hence done.

Calvin Lin Staff - 3 years, 11 months ago

It looks like you have a typo with the dy/dx, but it doesn't change the result. You also have another typo. The 275 should in the exponent should be 375 (on the bottom line). Nice solutions Pi and Calvin!

James Wilson - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Fixed. Thanks

Pi Han Goh - 3 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

No prob ;)

James Wilson - 3 years, 8 months ago
Calvin Lin Staff
Jul 14, 2017

[This is not a solution.]

Yes, if you type it into a calculator, you can get the value of 5.12 ish.

How can we demonstrate that

5 < log 2 3 + log 3 4 + log 4 5 + log 5 6 < 6 ? 5 < \log_2 3 + \log_3 4 + \log_4 5 + \log_5 6 < 6 ?

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...