What can we say about positive real solutions to the equations
x x 2 0 1 8 = 2 0 1 8 and x x x . . . = 2 0 1 8 ?
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.
@Jon Haussmann @Steve Chow @Saurabh Bansal
Thanks for inspiring this problem.
Hehehe! : )
Can you please state why and the solution to it??
Log in to reply
Ya the reason is simple TRY DOING THIS FOR A MILLION OF TIMES; U NEVER GET CLOSER TO THE SOUTION
2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 = 1 . 0 0 3 7 7 8 1 1 1
If you take x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 and try x x x . . , you will get the answer tending to 1 . 0 0 3 7 9 2 4 6 7 . It is not 2 0 1 8 . In fact, for x x x . . = a to have a real solution, e − 1 < a < e e .
Log in to reply
Wow, could you explain the last part.
Sir but when x=2018^(1/2018) and we try out x^x^x... We get 2018^(1/2018)*2018^(1/2018)...... and so on so do we not get 2018?????
Well for the second equation, if x is bigger than one, then it's unbounded. Therefore, the solution for first equation doesn't apply to the second one.
Log in to reply
That claim is not true.
There are some values larger than 1 that will converge. As an example, 2 2 2 … = 2 .
It is true that for large enough values, it becomes unbounded. As an example, 2 2 2 … is unbounded.
Surely "they are different" is not really the answer? "The first exists, but the second does not" is more to the point.
Log in to reply
Ah indeed. I've updated the answer options to reflect this.
Could you help me understand what is wrong with this line of reasoning for the second equation?
x x x ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ = 2 0 1 8
ln ( x x x ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ) = ln ( 2 0 1 8 )
x x x ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ × ln ( x ) = ln ( 2 0 1 8 )
2 0 1 8 × ln ( x ) = ln ( 2 0 1 8 )
ln ( x ) = 2 0 1 8 ln ( 2 0 1 8 )
x = e 2 0 1 8 ln ( 2 0 1 8 )
x = ( e ln ( 2 0 1 8 ) ) 2 0 1 8 1
x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8
Log in to reply
You are experiencing the misconception that the problem aims to highlight.
Which of these steps is substantiated assuming the previous step is true?
Which of these steps do you think is the most dubious? Why?
What assumptions are you making? Are these valid?
Log in to reply
Does the issue arise when we substitute x x x ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ for 2 0 1 8 in step 4? That steps seems the most dubious, as the rest of the algebra checks out.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Osborne – That is one possible interpretation.
I use the word "possible" because it could be substantiated by the first step.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Ohhh, I think I see, the solution 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 makes absolutely no sense as when you continue to multiply this number by itself the value keeps growing. Of course it wouldn't suddenly land on 2018! But what does this answer mean for the equation if the rest of the steps are logically sound? How did this answer appear if the steps are right, but there clearly is no solution? Or was there some mistake in the reasoning?
Log in to reply
@Calvin Osborne
–
The mistake is in the very first line.
Namely, the assumption you are making is "A solution exists". Just because you write down a string of symbols, doesn't mean that it must make sense. In a similar manner, a random collection of words might not yield a valid sentence.
So, what you have shown is that "If a solution exists, then the solution can only be
x
=
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
8
1
".
The next step of the proof is to verify if
x
=
2
0
1
8
2
0
1
8
1
indeed satisfies the original equation, which it does not. Hence, there is no solution.
This comes up often in limit problems, especially when you see "Set L = lim … ." There is apriori no reason why the limit must exist, and it needs to be further justified. E.g. through a delta-epsilon argument.
Log in to reply
@Calvin Lin – Ok that makes a lot of sense, thanks for the help!
The notation for the second equation implies that there is more than one x in the tower, I assume? Otherwise, you could have an equation of the form 2018 = 2018.
Log in to reply
The notation for the second equation implies that there are infinitely many x in the tower. It does not imply that you can choose a finite cut off point.
To indicate that there is a finite cut off point, what is often done is to say " x x … x with n x 's".
What steps did you take to derive the solution 2018^(1/2018) ?
Log in to reply
For the first equation,
First, prove that x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 is a solution to the first problem. This can be done by showing that
- On x > 1 , x x 2 0 1 8 is an increasing function on x > 1 , hence there is at best a unique answer on x > 1 . Manually verify that x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 works.
- On 0 < x < 1 , x x 2 0 1 8 < 1 , hence there are no solutions.
For the second equation, x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 is NOT a solution.
Sir could u pls explain why have we found the value of x=2018^(1/2018)=1.00378 and then we raise x to its powers and say that it does not converge to the required but to a different one which is 1.00379 but we don't find the value of √2^√2??? pls help me out
Log in to reply
Read the part on "More generally, how can we know what x x … converge to?"
What if we change the order of actions? For, example, for x = 0 . 9 we have 0 . 9 0 . 9 . . . Beginning from the first action, we have 0 . 9 0 9 5 . . . 0 . 9 0 . 9 . . . and lim x → 0 . 9 x x . . . = 1 . Now, lim x → 0 . 9 x x . . . = x lim x → 0 . 9 x x . . . = 0 . 9 . Is that legit?
Log in to reply
I do not understand what you are saying. Let me list out my concerns.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
@Vadim Shkaberda – 1) Review how are exponent towers evaluated? It is not done in a "random order". In particular, it is evaluated from the top down, not from the bottom up as you have it.
So yes, that's an issue with understanding the infinite tower notation, a "better" way to describe what we're saying is . . . x x x , but that just feels weird.
Regarding the second equation:
Euler showed that n → ∞ lim n times x x ⋅ ⋅ x converges for e e 1 ≤ x ≤ e e 1 , which bounds y = n times x x ⋅ ⋅ x to e 1 ≤ y ≤ e . The limit, should it exist, is a positive real solution of the equation y = x y . Thus, x = y y 1 .
The limit defining the infinite tetration of x fails to converge for x > e e 1 because the maximum of y is e . Thus, there exists no (positive real) solution for the equation x x ⋅ ⋅ x = 2 0 1 8 .
The second infinite power sequence is either 1 or diverges, therefore there is no solution.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
The solution to the first equation is x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 .
The solution to the second equation is not x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 . In fact, there is no (positive real) solution to this equation.
Find the error in this approach
First, prove that x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 is a solution to the first problem. This can be done by showing that
Let y = x x … = 2 0 1 8 .
By substituting into the power, we get y = x y .
Thus, x = y y 1 = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 .
Hence, the 2 solutions are the same.
What is the error made?
Explanation of the error
The error is made in saying "Let y = x x … = 2 0 1 8 ." without justifying that it is a valid step. Just because you write down a string of symbols, doesn't mean that it must make sense. Specifically, this value does not converge for some values of x (e.g. x = 2 ), hence we do not yet know if there is a value of x which will make this statement valid. This results in a circular argument of "Let's assume a solution exists. Hence a solution exists".
Instead, the proper conclusion is "If there is a solution, then the solution can only be x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 ". We now have to verify if it is indeed a solution. By looking at the first few terms, for x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 ≈ 1 . 0 0 3 7 8 , we have x x x ≈ 1 . 0 0 3 7 9 , x x x x ≈ 1 . 0 0 3 7 9 , and so this sequence converges to 1 . 0 0 3 7 9 . Hence, this value of x is not a solution to the equation that we're looking for.
More generally, how can we know what x x … converge to? The previous discussion shows that we will require x = n n 1 . If there is no solution, then clearly it will not converge. But, if a solution exists, must it converge? And what happens if multiple solutions exist?
To fully answer this requires a bit more theory which I will not go into as yet. Here's an outline of the result:
Notes from the discussions.
This error is very similar to the instance where we squared both sides of an equation and potentially introduced an extraneous solution, and thus have to check whether or not it is a valid solution. Due to the one-way implication, we have a necessary condition that restricts what the solutions could be, and must then verify if the solutions are indeed valid.
Infinite powers can exist/converge even though x > 1 . As an example, a well-known fact (which I will not prove) is that if x = 2 then x x … = 2 . Indeed, in this scenario x 2 = 2 .
However, if x is "too large", then infinite towers might not exist. As an example, 2 2 … will not converge.
If we take x = 2 0 1 8 2 0 1 8 1 ≈ 1 . 0 0 3 7 8 then the sequence x , x x , x x x does converge. However, it does not converge to 2018. This shouldn't be too surprising since 1 . 0 0 3 7 8 < 2 , so the limit should be bounded above by 2 2 … = 2 .
What is the range of x for which x x … converges?