2 2 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 2 2 < 2
Is this true?
Bonus: Generalize the following. n times x x x ⋯ x
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.
This is what I mean to generalize n times ↑ ↑ x x x ⋯ x = n times ↑ ↑ x x x ⋯ x
Log in to reply
Ok, I've edited the solution showing that in a more formal way.
Oh, i thought you meant we should find a similar bound for any other values of x and n...
Because that is quite easy to prove: x F ( x ) = ( x F ( x ) ) 2 1 = x 2 F ( x ) = ( x 2 1 ) F ( x ) = x F ( x )
I,m not convinced. Let's iteratively build up the tower starting with y = [sqrt(2)]^[sqrt(2). Then log(y) = sqrt(2) log(sqrt(2)) = .212860352, so y = 1.63252692. Now consider [sqrt(2)]^y = x. log(x) = y log(sqrt(2)) = .245719786, and x =1.760839556, and as we repeat this process, I think the limit is 2,So I would say we have equality rather than <. Looking at it another way, if we define the tower as t, the inequality can be written as [sqrt(2)]^r = r, which has the solution of r = 2. Another argument that we have equality, not <. Ed Gray
Log in to reply
The tower does not tend till infinity
If the tower did tend to infinity, the limit is indeed 2. To see this, think about the sequences a n = b n − 1 2 and b n = a n 2 1 with a 0 = 2 . The limit of a n is the same as the limit of the infinite tower.
Log in to reply
i think you mean a n = 2 b n − 1 since what you have there, b n − 1 2 is just a n − 1 ... :-B
Well no, the question is incorrect as sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)... is equal to 2. Presh Talwaker worked it out in the opening segment of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmP3sFIZ0XE
Log in to reply
@Elijah L @Edwin Gray but there aren't infinite many 2 here, only five.
Log in to reply
Jacopo, mea culpa, I misread the problem. Best Regards, Ed
Rewrite 2 2 2 2 2 as ⎝ ⎛ 2 2 2 2 2 ⎠ ⎞ 2 1 = ( 2 ) 2 2 2 2 .
For equivalence to hold, 2 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 2 . Continue the pattern and finally you will get that 2 = 2 which is obviously true. All that's left is proving that they're both less than 2 . We know that 2 2 = 2 so 2 2 < 2 and continue this reasoning to prove that 2 2 2 2 2 < 2 and hence both are less than 2 .
May also equal to 2 If you take the equation as " x " ( sorry I could not type the " square root 2 .......etc. up to infinite,) then SQUARE it . It will be x^2 = 2 ( same equation) = 2 x Hence x^ 2 = 2 x or x = 2 So the given equation ( " square root 2 .......etc. up to infinite,) = x = 2 If I am wrong, please correct me
Log in to reply
Yes....X may also equal to 2...but we must take power sqrt(2) infinte times then it converges to 2.......
I think x^2 = 2^x, not x^2 = 2x
For x > 0, the answer will always be closer 0
Umm... For x=4, even though 4>0, "the answer" (which answer, though?! you forgot to say...) doesn't seem to be getting anywhere near 0. The value increases super-exponentially, and at a mere n=5 we get 65536. Or is that still "closer 0" somehow? -.-
a b = a b for a , b > 0 , since both are positive and their squares are equal. The conclusion follows.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Yes, it's true. Let's suppose that
2 2 2 2 2 < 2 ( 1 )
Squaring both sides:
2 2 2 2 2 < 4 = 2 2
By monotonicity:
2 2 2 2 < 2
Which is similar to ( 1 ) , with one square root less. It's now clear that iterating the process we have to end up with
2 < 2 .
which is true, therefore ( 1 ) is true too.
I don't know exactly what @Naren Bhandari wanted to say with "generalize", but I assume it's that: let's consider the sequence
a a 1 = x a n = x a n − 1
We can write a n in this way:
a n = x a n − 1 = x a n − 1
Therefore a 2 = x x , a 3 = x x x and so on; hence a n is x ↑ ↑ n using Knuth's up-arrow notation.
For a more formal, although trivial, proof:
We can prove that by induction. The base case is obvious. The induction step too:
a n + 1 = x a n = x x ↑ ↑ n = x ↑ ( x ↑ ↑ n ) = x ↑ ↑ ( n + 1 )