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.
Should be as hard as you have described although we all know that calculator or Excel shall give an answer of 2 by following proper sequence.
Log in to reply
Yes, it must be as hard as this, because otherwise you haven't proven that the limit exists and you also haven't proven that 4 is not the answer.
Let x = 2 2 2 . . . . Then, we have:
x ⇒ lo g x 2 lo g x ⇒ x = 2 2 2 . . . = 2 x = 2 2 x = 2 x lo g 2 = x lo g 2 = { 4 2 but 2 4 4 . . . diverges so unacceptable
2 lo g x = x lo g 2 ⟹ x = 2
This step isn't true. For example, x = 4 is also a solution
Log in to reply
Starting from \sqrt2 ^\sqrt2, x = \sqrt2 ^ x cannot be 4. Quite tricky and hard to explain though. The eventual evaluation shall be 2 2 = 2 with index of at most 2 for 2. Only if we skip an x to 4, then the consequence shall be 4 since ever. It is interesting to note that initial x of 3.99 and 4.01 for examples shall not give 4 eventually! Computing error can even make initial x of 4 to diverge away.
Log in to reply
Thanks. I will change the answer.
Log in to reply
@Chew-Seong Cheong – Add some explanation or slight modification shall be sufficient. Generally all right!
Thanks, I will change the answer.
very precise solution :-)
Log in to reply
But actually we should show that the quantity converges first before finding the solution.
Please somebody help me understand what happened in line 3?
Log in to reply
I hope the following helps.
x = 2 2 2 . . . = 2 2 2 2 . . . = 2 x
Sir, how did we conclude that the solution for 2logx=xlog2 is x=2....????
Divergence may not be that much with 4 4 as index or otherwise it may also be other figures. Doesn't matter though.
can u please explain me why u put the log?
Log in to reply
I need to do that to find x . You can use other method if you have one.
Can we simply write as following ? s q r t 2 s q r t 2 s q r t 2 = l i m n − > + i n f 2 1 / 2 n
With: l i m n − > + i n f 1 / 2 n = 0
Then: l i m n − > + i n f 2 1 / 2 n = 2 0 = 2
let x=√2^√2^√2^.... Then 2 x = x . We now raise both sides to x 1 . Then, 2 = x x 1 or 2 2 1 = x x 1 Concequently x = 2
It can be simplified as follows - 2 2 1 × 2 It continues this way. in every level, the product is 1. so, it simplifies to - 2 1 and so on( 1 at every power ). This is equal to 2!
let x=√2^√2^√2^..... Then, x=√2^x Taking log; log x = x log √2 or, log x = x/2 log 2 or, log x /x = log 2 /2 or, log x^1/x = log2^1/2 Taking antilog; x^1/x = 2^1/2 By comparison; x = 2.
i hav a more weird soln ... (i am not sure whether i did the right way though my answer is right)
as Chew-Seong Sir did below, i got
root(2)^x = x so .. root(2) = x^(1/x) taking LOGARITHM on both sides; (1/2)(log 2) = (1/x)(log x)
hence x = 2 (by observation)
AM I RIGHT???
yes! but try to use latex to make the things look better
Log in to reply
how do u use latex ... rather where the option wud be .... i searched and searched and left
Log in to reply
https://brilliant.org/discussions/thread/beginner-latex-guide/
go through this
x can still be 4 in this case if we substitute to check.
Log in to reply
yeah ... but i still dont know y 4 is not a soln ... i still dont understand how Chew-Seong sir got that
Log in to reply
Hard to explain really. However, 4 can just be a skipped in answer and it is also unstable when exactness is disturbed. When we 'iterate' step by step, only 2 shall be met as answer because even before arrival to exact 4, 3.99 is approaching for 2 while 4.01 is going to diverge. Therefore, there left with no path for an iteration to arrive to 4 unless a skipped in. Consequently, 2 is the only answer. Please ignore the index of 4 4 as it was just simply written, I think.
Perhaps we may like to deduce that the expression with values of ambiguity between 2 and 4 is an expression with invalid value because of an indeterminate. I think we should keep on thinking for an exact determination while taking 2 as an obvious preference. There ought to be some theory behind to define.
All we know is an expression likes this must only map onto sole value. When we cut for an expression of finite terms, we can only evaluate the expression step by step, right? Then, we can see that only 2 shall be approached but not 4. This makes a reason for 2 as an obvious preference. I think this question is an excellent question.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
A naive approach is to let the answer be x . Then, since the exponent itself is x , it should satisfy x = ( 2 ) x . We can see that x = 2 is a solution, but we also find that x = 4 is another solution to this equation. Which one is correct? Moreover, it's even possible that the expression doesn't converge to any limit. We thus should go the hard way.
First, we need to formalize this expression. The simplest way to understand the question is to define the sequence a 1 = 2 , a n + 1 = ( 2 ) a n for all n ≥ 1 , and thus the question asks for lim n → ∞ a n .
First, we claim that the sequence { a n } is bounded above by 2. This will then rule out the possibility that the limit is 4; it doesn't even get anywhere close. This is simple to prove by induction. a 1 = 2 < 2 is trivial, and a n + 1 = ( 2 ) a n < ( 2 ) 2 = 2 is true (using the inductive hypothesis a n < 2 ) because x ↦ ( 2 ) x is an increasing function.
Now, we claim that the sequence { a n } is strictly increasing. This is harder because there doesn't seem to be any "clean" way. Instead, to prove that a n + 1 = ( 2 ) n a > a n , we will show that the function x ↦ ( 2 ) x − x is strictly positive for x < 2 . This comes from two results:
What these tell is that for x < 2 , because the function must decrease as it approach to 2, it must be positive in this region; if it's non-positive, it cannot decrease to reach zero at x = 2 .
Since x ↦ ( 2 ) x − x is strictly positive for x < 2 , plugging x = a n gives that a n + 1 − a n = ( 2 ) a n − a n > 0 , so the sequence { a n } is strictly increasing.
Since the sequence is strictly increasing and bounded from above, it must converge by the monotonic sequence theorem , thus it has a limit. Only now that we can approach like in the naive way, finding that the limit is either 2 or 4. But our first result rules out 4, since we know the sequence doesn't even go above 2. So the limit must be 2 .