Which is greater?

Algebra Level 1

7 1 70 or 7 0 71 \Large \color{#3D99F6}{71^{70}} \quad \text{or} \quad \color{#D61F06}{ 70^{71} }

Which one of the two numbers above is greater?

7 0 71 {70^{71}} 7 1 70 {71^{70}}

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.

37 solutions

We can use binomial expansion to help compare these two numbers:

7 1 70 = ( 70 + 1 ) 70 = 7 0 70 + 70 ( 7 0 69 ) + 70 ˙ 69 2 ( 7 0 68 ) + 70 ˙ 69 ˙ 68 2 ˙ 3 ( 7 0 67 ) + . . . + 1 [ 71 terms ] = 7 0 70 + 7 0 70 + 69 2 ( 7 0 69 ) + 69 ˙ 68 2 ˙ 3 ( 7 0 68 ) + . . . + 1 < 70 ( 7 0 70 ) = 7 0 71 \begin{aligned} 71^{70} & = (70 +1)^{70} \\ & = 70^{70} + 70(70^{69}) + \frac{70\dot{}69}{2}(70^{68}) + \frac{70\dot{}69\dot{}68}{2\dot{}3}(70^{67}) +... + 1 \quad \small \color{#3D99F6}{[71 \text{ terms}]} \\ & = 70^{70} + 70^{70} + \frac{69}{2}(70^{69}) + \frac{69\dot{}68}{2\dot{}3}(70^{68}) +... + 1 \\ & < 70(70^{70} ) = 70^{71} \end{aligned}

7 0 71 > 7 1 70 \Rightarrow \boxed{70^{71}} > 71^{70}

Moderator note:

Thanks for showing the Binomial Expansion approach.

Log 7071= 71 Log 70= 131.0019608 Log 7170= 70 Log 71= 129.5880844

Om Singh - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

your solution has a drawback/ you use a calculator to compute Log71 and log70

Andrii Mazur - 1 year, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

yeah not very insightful, they things is we have been trained to compute haha

Bruno Martel - 1 month, 4 weeks ago

@Chew-Seong Cheong How do you think of these solutions

Department 8 - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

71 = 70 + 1 71=70+1 gives me the clue. There must be a way the problem creator thought of when creating the problem. We have to guess it in solving the problem.

Chew-Seong Cheong - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

1/X(lnX) is a decresing function for X>e So 1/70(ln70)>1/71(ln71) => 70^71>71^70

bhargav pavuluri - 5 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Bhargav Pavuluri Doesn't that just imply that 70^70 < 71^71?

Franklin Gregory - 5 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@Franklin Gregory i think misunderstood what i meant was (lnX)/X

bhargav pavuluri - 5 years, 4 months ago

The brilliancy is not only at the beginning of the solution, also the last two steps are neat and elegant.

Notice how @Chew-Seong Cheong drives your attention to the fact that, after applying the binomial theorem, the number 71^70 can be expressed as the sum of 71 terms. It' also pretty easy to spot that each term is lesser or equal than 70^70

Now you just need to realize that 70^71 is the same as 70*(70)^70. It takes (at least to me) a little leap of imagination to see that this is the same as adding 70^70 for seventy times. Since every term of the first sequence (the binomial one, so to speak) is less than 70^70 we got our solution.

It's just beautiful to find such a simple concept as the very definition of multiplication useful to solve a definitely more complex problem.

Thank you sir for sharing this.

Michele Franzoni - 2 years, 3 months ago

I love this way, Sir.

Panya Chunnanonda - 5 years, 5 months ago

Sorry sir, but can we just predict that 70^71 will have more digits than 71^70?

Therefore 70^71 > 71^70 ?

Thank you :)

Angelica Wiliana - 5 years ago

Log in to reply

Of course, you can. I believe it is using log x \log x . If we are using a calculator for it we must well just use calculator to for the actual values of 7 0 71 70^{71} and 7 1 70 71^{70} .

Chew-Seong Cheong - 5 years ago

(70)^71 = (70x70)^70 > (71)^70

Julien-Elie Taieb - 4 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

7 0 71 = 70 7 0 70 ( 70 70 ) 70 = 7 0 140 70^{71} = 70\cdot 70^{70} \ne (70 \cdot 70)^{70} = 70^{140}

Chew-Seong Cheong - 4 years, 7 months ago

Simple logic. ●We have 70^71 and 71^70... ●70^71 = 71 times 70 is present. ●71^70=(70+1)^70=(70^70)+(1^70)=(70 times 70)+(1)=70 times 70 +1(1 added to result of 70^70).. ●So we have 71 times 70 in 70^71 and 70 times 70 in 71^70. ●Hence,70^71>71^70

Gokul Hk - 4 years, 5 months ago

I have done it using the same exact method....... :-)

Rudra Jadon - 3 years, 10 months ago

Amazing sir

Sudeep Sharma - 2 years, 9 months ago

I did similarly

Maunil Chopra - 2 years, 2 months ago

I can tell simplicity is something you do not keep in mind. I don't understand why you would want to work out the long way when there is a way easier way lol...some people

Caiden Cleveland - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

I actually just keyed in using Python 70 71 > 71 70 70**71 > 71**70 and then [Enter], and the result was "True". But this did not involve Algebra and not a good solution.

Chew-Seong Cheong - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

Lol best answer :),your sense of humour is good :D

Aashirvad Raj - 5 years, 5 months ago

That's rude.

Keshav Tiwari - 5 years, 10 months ago

That's true. I just found out from looking at different exponential comparisons (such as this one) that the smaller number to the power larger number is larger than the larger number to the smaller number.

Achyuta Kannan - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

doesn't work for 2 and 3

Wael Radwan - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

@Wael Radwan Doesn't have to work for all numbers. The question was about 70 and 71. If this was asking about 2 and 3 then yes you are correct. But otherwise not really relevant.

dominic parnell - 5 years, 7 months ago

@Wael Radwan Are 2 an 3 the only exceptions?

Jess Doe - 5 years, 5 months ago

Log in to reply

@Jess Doe that's a good question to ask ..

Waleed Mustafa - 4 years, 11 months ago

@Jess Doe 0,1,2, and 3 I think.

Nora Phan - 4 years, 11 months ago

7 1 70 7 0 71 71^{70} \boxed{} 70^{71}

ln ( 71 ) 71 ln ( 70 ) 70 \dfrac{\ln (71)}{71} \boxed{} \dfrac{\ln(70)}{70}

Consider function f ( x ) = ln ( x ) x f(x)=\dfrac{\ln (x)}{x} and the derivative is 1 ln ( x ) x 2 \dfrac{1-\ln(x)}{x^{2}} since we have this we know that when x > e x> e it's a decreasing function.

Hence, when the x value increase the value of function decrease.

So,

ln ( 71 ) 71 < ln ( 70 ) 70 \dfrac{\ln (71)}{71} \boxed{<} \dfrac{\ln(70)}{70}

then

7 1 70 < 7 0 71 71^{70} \boxed{<} 70^{71}

Best proof as it can be applied to analyse when a^b > b^a

John Martin - 4 years, 8 months ago

This is a nice way to think!

Maunil Chopra - 2 years, 2 months ago

😕😕I don’t get it🤔🤔

shooter playzzz - 1 year, 2 months ago

beautiful way of using calculus

Bostang Palaguna - 1 year ago

Beautiful. I used log function but no calculus. Just some numerical analysis.

Laxmi Narayan Bhandari Xth B - 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Putting 2 and 3 into your analysis for a and b respectively, your proposition falls utterly. @ABHISHEK JOHN MARTIN

Danzy Diggy - 4 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

Yes, it does. But that is not because my method is wrong. Rather I think you don't seem to understand what I wrote. It, generally, falls if you substitute 2 numbers that are on the opposite side of "e" since we have no right to conclude anything using this method. So, what you did is basically substitute what can go wrong and show that it is wrong.

คลุง แจ็ค - 4 years, 7 months ago
Sushil Kumar
Aug 8, 2015

Logs had different bases in last step How did you remove the bases and compare?

Amit Rathi - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

He converted the logarithmic notation to exponential form It follows this basic rule:

x y = a T h e n , l o g x a = y { x }^{ y }=a\\ Then,\quad { log }_{ x }a\quad =\quad y

Yashwanth Manivannan - 5 years, 10 months ago

Log in to reply

If he did that, we would get 70<71 in the last step. Instead he did something, which makes no sense after circling around a lot. After the first 2 lines you can skip directly to the last 2. Last step is basically going from the logaritmic form of 70<71 straight to the solution with no justification. Of course the solution is true, but why and how that is conected to 70<71 is not shown. This is a solution with a lot of unnecessary math, which then jumps straight to the solution as if to confuse a potential examiner he gets it...

Nick Zafiridis - 5 years, 6 months ago

Circular reasoning

Trần Phúc - 5 years, 7 months ago

it seems like in the last step you have proven 70<71... can you explain how you got to comparing the powers?

Abhishek Poojari - 5 years, 7 months ago

In the second last step, you went back to the second step of the problem which says Log X base 71 = 70 and Log X' base 70 = 71. So we already know Log X base 71 < Log X' base 70. Why do you need so much of derivation for that??

Gourab Roy - 5 years, 7 months ago

Hi Sushil Kumar, if you use this logic, you can prove that 1^1000 is greater than 1000^1. Hope you understand..

jomy george - 4 years, 8 months ago

Log in to reply

The case cannot be done with 1 because something base 1 in logarithm is 0 .

Pritam Chowdhury - 3 years, 11 months ago

Log in to reply

No, because it's undefined. logbase1(x)=ln(x)/ln1=ln(x)/0

Kulmar's logic is jumping from a<b to b^a<a^b, which is wrong. It a logical leap, which proves nothing. This by itself is enough.

It also happens to be wrong in some cases indeed: When a, b are in (0,e]. For example, 3^4>4^3, but 2^e<e^2

Nick Zafiridis - 3 years, 7 months ago

incorrect sol.

munai biswas - 2 years, 9 months ago

how did you change the inequality signs

kishan chaudhary - 5 years, 3 months ago

Log in to reply

By the logic above, the steps should follow substituting 2 and 3 for 70 and 71 respectively. But the don't because the last step is faulty. Comparing logs in different bases is apples and oranges.

Don VanOteghem - 3 years, 3 months ago
Rodrigo Almeida
Aug 16, 2015

Suppose 7 1 70 > 7 0 71 7 1 70 > 70 7 0 70 71^{70} > 70^{71} \Rightarrow 71^{70} > 70 \cdot 70^{70}

We can rewrite this inequation as

( 71 70 ) 70 > 70 \left(\frac{71}{70}\right)^{70} > 70

Or...

( 1 + 1 70 ) 70 > 70 \left(1+\frac{1}{70}\right)^{70} > 70

The expression on the left is now on the form

( 1 + 1 x ) x \left(1+\frac{1}{x} \right)^x

Which we know is never greater than the euler constant (2.71828) for increasing values of x, and thus can't be greater than 70. So it turns out then that the opposite is true ( 7 0 71 > 7 1 70 70^{71} > 71^{70} )

very well done, Best explanation so far.

Jacky Yung - 5 years, 5 months ago

My favorite explanation so far. Thanks.

Franklin Gregory - 5 years, 5 months ago

your solution is better than the top rated solutions,now i understood clearly.

Mohammad Khaza - 3 years, 9 months ago

Bravo! I have got a similar solution

Andrii Mazur - 1 year, 10 months ago
Chris Luna
Aug 13, 2015

We can solve this using a Taylor Expansion. First we consider the following Taylor Expansion of ( 1 x ) n 1 n x ( 1-x)^{n} \approx 1-nx , where x 1 x \ll 1 . It follows then that

( 71 ) 70 = ( 70 + 1 ) 70 = 7 0 70 ( 1 + 1 70 ) 70 7 0 70 ( 1 + 70 1 70 ) = 7 0 70 × 2 (71)^{70} = (70 +1)^{70 }= 70^{70} (1+\frac{1}{70})^{70} \approx 70^{70}(1 + 70\frac{1}{70}) = 70^{70} \times 2

Concerning the other term,

7 0 71 = 7 0 70 × 7 0 1 = 7 0 70 × 70 70^{71} = 70^{70} \times 70^{1} = 70^{70}\times 70 .

Thus,

7 1 70 < 7 0 71 71^{70} < 70^{71} .

Solved like a true Physicist.

however don't you feel we must not use approximations to solve such problems...

Anant Kumar Singh - 5 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

On the contrary, this is the perfect problem to use an approximation. This such problem asked which of two terms is greater than the other. It did not ask for exact values.

Jim Kissel - 3 years, 7 months ago

Althought he used an approximation, this is a real mathematical identity: I am too lazy to format, so e= epsilon > 0 but less than 1 and very small.

Hence, (1 + e)^n >= 1 + n*e

Where n is any positive integer (including 0).

Which can be shown through mathematical induction as follows:

a) for n=0, we have that 1=1 b) now, if we assume that the nth case is true, we must induce the n+1 case

Hence, (1+e)^n(1+e) = (1+e)^(n+1) >= (1+n e)(1+e) = 1 + e + n e + n (e^2) = (1 + (n+1) e) + n*(e^2)

But, we must hand the last term:

Since e > 0 and very small anf since n>=0, we can see right away that n*(e^2) >= 0

==> (1 + (n+1) e) + n (e^2) >= 1+(n+1)*e

Hence, (1+e)^n >= 1 + ne is true for all integers n>0 and for all epsilon, e > 0 and very small.

Now, back to the problem at hand:

Consider 71^70:

71^70 = (70 +1)^70 = (70^70)(1+(1/70))^70 So, the second multiplicative term takes on our identity where e=(1/70) and n = 70

Which means that 71^70 >= (70^70)(1 + 70*(1/70)) ==>

==> 71^70 >= (70^70)(70)((1/70) + (1/70)) = (70^71)(2e) > (70^71)*e

Hence, since 1 > (70^71)*e/(71^70)

But, we argue since e is very small and that since neither (70^71) nor (71^70) are small that (71^70)* (very large) > (70^71)

So, (70^71) > (71^70)

Jonathan Troville - 4 years, 9 months ago
Abdul Qavi
Aug 8, 2015

Let's say 71 = 70*X

71^70 = 70^70 * X^70

Multiply with 70 on both side

71^70 * 70 = 70^71 * X^70

71^70 / 70^71 = X^70 / 70

Now if, X^70/ 70 >1 then 71^70 is more else 70^71 is more

Approx Calculation for X is 1.01. So X^70 will turn out to be approx = 1 . Hence X^70/ 70 = 1 / 70 (approx.) < 1

So 70^71 is more :). Hope this was a simple solution and easily to explain to others.

Seán Vaeth
Aug 16, 2015

This how I solve the majority of problems: take a small sample data: 2 3 = 8 2^{3}= 8 3 2 = 9 3^{2}=9 4 3 = 64 4^{3} = 64 3 4 = 81 3^{4} = 81 5 4 = 625 5^{4} = 625 4 5 = 1024 4^{5} = 1024 By induction we can reason that for n > 2 n n + 1 > ( n + 1 ) n n^{n+1} > (n+1)^{n}
T h e r e f o r e : 7 0 71 > 7 1 70 Therefore: \boxed{70^{71} > 71^{70} }

Moderator note:

This is incomplete. You have not proved that it's true for all integer n n .

Tom Kitchen - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

Great solution!!!

Chris Galanis - 5 years, 7 months ago

"Challenge Master note: This is incomplete. You have not proved that it's true for all integer N."

Don't have to prove that this is true for all integer N. Just have to prove that there is an ever growing expansion between results. Plus note, that any counter example to this theory exists is < 3.

Jerrod Sutton - 5 years, 7 months ago

Log in to reply

If there is an ever growing expansion between results how can it not be true for all ints after a certain one? The only way to prove there is not any counter example >=3 is, well...to prove it!

Nick Zafiridis - 5 years, 6 months ago
Ryan Creedon
Aug 17, 2015

Here's a quick three-step method that works for problems of the same type with sufficiently large numbers.

  1. Consider the ratio 7 1 70 7 0 71 \frac{71^{70}}{70^{71}} .

  2. Rewrite the ratio as 1 70 . ( 1 + 1 70 ) 70 \frac{1}{70} . (1 + \frac{1}{70})^{70} .

  3. Recognize e (~ 2.71828) is an upper-bound of ( 1 + 1 70 ) 70 (1 +\frac{1}{70})^{70} , since e = lim n ( 1 + 1 n ) n e = \lim_{n\to\infty} (1 + \frac{1}{n})^{n} and the sequence is monotonically increasing.

It now becomes clear that 7 1 70 7 0 71 < e 70 < 1 \frac{71^{70}}{70^{71}} < \frac{e}{70} < 1 , implying 7 1 70 < 7 0 71 71^{70} < 70^{71} . QED.

Took me a minute going from ( 1) to ( 2), but 100% yes.

( 1) = (71/70)^70 * (1/70) = ((70 + 1) / 70)^70 * 1/70 = ( 2)

The fact that (1+1/n)^n is increasing is not 100% obvious, but it is a standard fact.

Matthew Bond - 5 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Indeed, such a statement is not trivial, and I assumed the reader was familiar with the sequence. Here's a full proof of that claim. The argument is conducted via contradiction.

Suppose there exists a natural number m m such that the following holds:

( 1 + 1 m ) m ( 1 + 1 m + 1 ) m + 1 (1 + \frac{1}{m})^{m} \geqslant (1 + \frac{1}{m + 1})^{m + 1} .

Then, manipulation of the inequality shows that...

1 ( 1 + 1 m + 1 ) m + 1 ( 1 + 1 m ) m 1 \geqslant \frac{(1 + \frac{1}{m + 1})^{m + 1}}{(1 + \frac{1}{m})^{m}}

1 ( m + 2 m + 1 ) m + 1 ( m + 1 m ) m 1 \geqslant \frac{(\frac{m + 2}{m + 1})^{m + 1}}{(\frac{m + 1}{m})^{m}}

1 ( m + 2 m + 1 m + 1 m ) m m + 2 m + 1 1 \geqslant (\frac{\frac{m + 2}{m + 1}}{\frac{m + 1}{m}})^{m} \cdot \frac{m + 2}{m + 1}

1 ( m + 2 m ) m m + 2 m + 1 1 \geqslant (\frac{m + 2}{m})^{m} \cdot \frac{m + 2}{m + 1} .

Herein lies the contradiction.

Call A = m + 2 m A = \frac{m + 2}{m} and B = m + 2 m + 1 B = \frac{m + 2}{m + 1} . Then, the inequality found above reads 1 A m B 1 \geqslant A^{m} \cdot B .

Certainly, A > 1 A > 1 , and so too is any power of A A , namely A m A^{m} . Moreover, B > 1 B > 1 . Thus, one expects A m B > 1 A^{m} \cdot B > 1 , yet this contradicts the inequality found above.

Therefore, for each natural number m m , it must be true that ( 1 + 1 m ) m < ( 1 + 1 m + 1 ) m + 1 (1 + \frac{1}{m})^{m} < (1 + \frac{1}{m + 1})^{m + 1} . The sequence is strictly monotonically increasing by definition. QED.

Ryan Creedon - 5 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

The double-reciprocal is off here... Assuming that this proof is supposed to precede knowledge of calculus and logarithms, the only approach I can think of ends up using the Binomial Theorem and a comparison with a Geometric series. I thought I remembered this being a sticky problem, and the more I look at it, the more I feel like my memory was right on that. It's probably proved early in Rudin's text... I don't want to write up what I have because it's probably not the cleanest or even 100% correct...

Matthew Bond - 5 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

@Matthew Bond http://math.stackexchange.com/a/167869

Bernoulli's Inequality can probably be proved by calculus without logarithms, so it's still elementary enough that it's not cart-before-the-horse. There's probably a Binomial Theorem trick for that one too.

I only bring all this up because the difference between "well-known" and "obvious" is often pretty big, and people less experienced might not know which is which.

Matthew Bond - 5 years, 9 months ago

great approach

Madhu KN - 5 years, 5 months ago

Why m + 2 m + 1 m + 1 m = m + 2 m \frac {\frac {m+2}{m+1}}{ \frac {m+1}{m}} = \frac {m+2}{m} ?

m + 2 m + 1 m + 1 m = m + 2 m + 1 m m + 1 \frac {\frac {m+2}{m+1}}{ \frac {m+1}{m}} = \frac {m+2}{m+1} \cdot \frac {m}{m + 1}

Timothy Tsvetkov - 5 years, 6 months ago

Log in to reply

@Timothy Tsvetkov Sadly, it's a mistake, so the proof falls short. You need to use Matthew's approach.

Ryan Creedon - 5 years, 5 months ago
Miae Kim
Oct 16, 2016

divide both side by 7^70

(71/70)^70 vs 7

Oli Hohman
Nov 29, 2015

It helps to look at the general case.

(n+1)^n < n^(n+1) for all n>~2.29317, which is the solution to the equation (n+1)^n = n^(n+1)

Here n = 70, which is much larger than the value of ~2.29317

Henry Kwong
Nov 30, 2015
  1. 71^{70} = (70+1)^{70}
  2. 70^{71} = (70)^{(70+1)}

From 2, 70^{70}x70^{1}, therefore will be greater.

Please correct me if i''m wrong :)

Caesar Mezher
Nov 22, 2015

"1^t = 1 (t € R)" 71/70 ~= 1 (71/70)^70 = a small number (71/70)^70<70 of course 71^70<70^70 * 70 71^70<70^71

Vibhor Agarwal
Aug 8, 2015

take log on both sides. 71 log 70 and 70 log 71 now log x < x now, 71 > 70 log 70 < log 71 but multiplied together 71 log 70 > 70 log 71 since log x has smaller effect than x .

This is on the right track, but needs a little more polish. The idea is that 70 log70 = 70 log70, and to see how the quantity changes as one of the 70s changes.

Let <> stand for the unknown inequality, and >< its opposite if needed.

Consider a log(a + e) <> (a + e) log a

a = 70, e = 1. The important features are that a>1, and e>0.

Equality holds if e=0, but for e>0, both sides are positive with positive derivative. Treating e as the only variable, the LHS has derivative (that is, d/de) equal to a/(a +e), and the RHS has derivative log a. So as e increases, the LHS increases more slowly. In fact, the RHS grows more than log a times as fast!

a log (a + e) < (a + e) log a, and so 70 log(71) < 71 log(70)

You can be more accurate, too. The LHS could have grown log times as fast and still lost, because a/(a+e) < 1. We could prove that:

a log (a + e log a) < (a + e) log a.

So we even have

70 log (70 + log70) < 71 log 70 (70 + log 70) ^ 70 < 70 ^ 71. (The LHS is bigger than 71^70)

Matthew Bond - 5 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

I expanded this a bit and clarified a couple things as a separate solution, if anyone's interested. What I wrote above is now a little muddy and has a couple of typos. (Confusingly, I also used the character "e" as a variable, which is really bad practice.)

Matthew Bond - 5 years, 9 months ago
Jerry H Reitsmax
Jul 14, 2019

log 71 > (log 71 - log 70) x 71, so 70 ^ 71 is greater

Is this a valid calculation?

Big Chiroptera
Feb 21, 2019

Of course, the easiest solution is to plug both directly in calculator. You will get difference of 9.6579e130 approximately.

However, it can be proven, that x , a , w h e r e x > a > e , a x > x a \forall x, a, where x > a > e, a^{x} > x^{a}

Therefor 7 0 71 > 7 1 70 70^{71}>71^{70}

Zoe Codrington
Sep 23, 2018

Let's just say this: Powers and exponentials get big. The power and base are not negative, or 1, but in fact REALLY BIG. This means the power can easily take over, even if the base is one less! Use your intuition with this one( or, if you REALLY want, your calculator)

Gia Hoàng Phạm
Sep 19, 2018

We know that a a + 1 a^{a+1} & ( a + 1 ) a (a+1)^a that a a + 1 > ( a + 1 ) a a^{a+1}>(a+1)^a such that a a is a integer & a > 2 a>2 so 7 0 71 > 7 1 70 70^{71}>71^{70}

Mattia Conti
Feb 19, 2018

Write the fraction 7 1 70 7 0 71 \frac{71^{70}}{70^{71}}

then scompose 7 0 71 = 7 0 70 70 70^{71} = 70^{70}*70

then we collect ( 71 70 ) 70 1 70 (\frac{71}{70})^{70}*\frac{1}{70}

noticed that 71 70 1.00 \frac{71}{70} \approx 1.00

so 7 1 70 7 0 71 = ( 71 70 ) 70 1 70 1 70 < 1 \frac{71^{70}}{70^{71}} = (\frac{71}{70})^{70}*\frac{1}{70} \approx \frac{1}{70} < 1 .

If we have a fraction less than one the denominator is bigger than the numerator so the answer is 7 0 71 {70^{71}}

Leigh Thompson
Jan 14, 2018

From the following evaluations it can be infered that 7 0 71 > 7 1 70 {\rm{7}}{{\rm{0}}^{71}} > {71^{70}} as the values on the left of the inequality sign are increasing faster than those on the right of the inequality sign \begin{array}{*{20}{l}} {{0^1} < {1^0}}&{{\text{as }}0 < 1} \\ {{1^2} < {2^1}}&{{\text{as }}1 < 2} \\ {{2^3} < {3^2}}&{{\text{as }}8 < 9} \\ {{3^4} > {4^3}}&{{\text{as }}81 > 64} \\ {{4^5} > {5^4}}&{{\text{as }}1\,024 > 625} \\ {{5^6} > {6^5}}&{{\text{as 1}}5\,625 > 7\,776} \\ {{6^7} > {7^6}}&{{\text{as }}279\,936 > 117\,649} \end{array}

Amritpal Singh
Aug 18, 2016

Take small numbers do calculations e.g. 3 power 4 is equal to 81 and 4 power 3 is equal to 64 This way small number with greater power comes out to be larger number so 70 base power 71 is larger than 71base power 70.

Rikki Traballo
Aug 14, 2016

70 l n 71 71 l n 70 \frac{70ln71}{71ln70} = 0.989

meaning the denominator has a higher value. thus 70^71 has the larger value

Ashraful Mahin
Jun 3, 2016

It can be easily derived using induction

Olamide Ogunlade
May 9, 2016

Clearly 70^71 is greated than 71^70 as 70 is to a larger power.

What about 0 1 < 1 0 {{0^1} < {1^0}} or 1 2 < 2 1 {{1^2} < {2^1}}

Leigh Thompson - 3 years, 5 months ago

We know that if a<b de have ln(a)<ln(b), So, ln(71^70)=70ln(71)=70ln(70) + 70ln(71/70)

And ln(71/70) is very close to zero On the other hand de have ln(70^71)=71ln(70)=70ln(70)+ln(70)

Then ln(70)>70ln(71/70) So, ln(70^71)>ln(71^70) And, 70^71>71^70

Hansen Chang
Mar 13, 2016

Well.... 2^8 is greater than 8^2....therefore 70^71 is greater than 71^70

Well ... 1^2 is less than 2^1 ... therefore 70^71 is less than 71^70 or ... 0^1 is less than 1^0 ... therefore 70^71 is less than 71^70 same reasoning but wrong conclusion

Leigh Thompson - 3 years, 5 months ago
Jesse Nieminen
Mar 5, 2016

Let's try to solve this using calculus.

7 1 70 ? 7 0 71 \large{71^{70} \boxed{?} 70^{71}}

7 1 1 71 ? 7 0 1 70 \large{71^{\frac{1}{71}} \boxed{?} 70^{\frac{1}{70}}}

Now, let's look at the function n 1 n \large{n^\frac{1}{n}} .

Let's differentiate it.

d d n n 1 n = d d n e l n ( n 1 n ) = d d n e l n ( n ) n = ( d d n l n ( n ) n ) e l n ( n ) n \large{\frac{d}{dn} n^\frac{1}{n} = \frac{d}{dn} e^{ln\left({n^\frac{1}{n}}\right)} = \frac{d}{dn} e^\frac{ln\left(n\right)}{n} = \left(\frac{d}{dn} \frac{ln\left(n\right)}{n} \right)e^\frac{ln\left(n\right)}{n} } = 1 l n ( n ) n 2 e l n ( n ) n = l n ( e n ) n 1 n 2 \large{= \frac{1 - ln\left(n\right)}{n^2}e^\frac{ln\left(n\right)}{n} = ln\left(\frac{e}{n}\right)n^{\frac{1}{n} - 2} }

Which is negative iff n > e n > e .

This means that n 1 n n^\frac{1}{n} is strictly decreasing when n > e n > e which implies that 7 1 1 71 < 7 0 1 70 \large{71^{\frac{1}{71}} < 70^{\frac{1}{70}}} which in order implies that 7 1 70 < 7 0 71 \large{71^{70} < 70^{71}} .

Thus, 7 0 71 \boxed{70^{71}} is greater of these 2 numbers.

(This also proves that n m < m n n^m < m^n , if e < m < n e < m < n )

Moderator note:

Good rigorous approach to tackling this problem.

Gary Jennings
Dec 30, 2015

I don't know what you guys are thinking but I just thought about what calculators did when there were too many zeros

Can you elaborate further?

Calvin Lin Staff - 5 years, 3 months ago
Michael Friese
Nov 30, 2015

71^70 = X so 70log71=log X hence 10^129.588 =X
70^71 =Y so 71log70= log y hence 10^131.0019608 =Y

Y>X

Zhang Ong
Nov 20, 2015

(1+1/n)^n-->e when n is toward infinity provided n is a positive integer, it will always smaller than e (71/70)^70<e<70 (71^70)/(70^70)<70 71^70<70^71

Keroppi Yuen
Nov 19, 2015

71^70=(70+1)^70=70^70+141

70^71=70^70 70=70^70+(70^70) 69

(70^70)69>141

70^71>71^70

Ángel Flores
Nov 15, 2015

If we have y x y^{x} and x y x^{y} when x > y x > y

Then y x y^{x} > x y x^{y}

Only if {x,y} 1 \neq 1

And {x, y} R \in R

But when:

x = 3 x = 3 \vee y = 2 y = 2 \to y x y^{x} < x y x^{y}

x = 4 x = 4 \vee y = 2 y = 2 \to y x y^{x} = x y x^{y}

Zvika Dov
Nov 15, 2015

Chris White
Nov 11, 2015

Is it bad that I did this in my head and have no logic behind it? In my head 70^71 > 71^70 is the same as 1 + 1 = 2. Sure I could write some crazy theorem to prove it or I could just know it is true and leave it at that.

Jeffrey Sung
Nov 10, 2015

70^71=[70^(71/70)]^70=(74.38...)^70 > 71^70

Matthew Bond
Aug 23, 2015

I figured I would post my reply to a solution that I saw in this thread. It was basically a correct idea using intuition about growth rates, but it wasn't 100% spelled out.

Let <> stand for the unknown inequality, and >< its opposite if needed.

71^70 <> 70^71

Well, we know that 70^70 = 70^70, and we increase one number on each side by one. Which grows more?

The question is (a+E)^a <> a^(a+E).

a = 70, E = 1. The important features are that a > e = 2.718... , and E>0.

Log helps. (You can use log 10, but the "pure math" convention is log e, sometimes written as ln)

The question, then, is a log(a+E) <> (a+E) log(a)

Equality holds if E=0, but for E>0, both sides are positive. Treating E as the only variable, the LHS has derivative (that is, d/dE) equal to a/(a +E), and the RHS has derivative log a. So as E increases, the LHS increases more slowly. In fact, the RHS grows more than (log a) times as fast! log a > 1 > a/(a+E), since a > e and E>0.

a log (a + E) < (a + E) log a, and so 70 log(71) < 71 log(70)

You can be more accurate, too. The LHS could have grown (log a) times as fast and still lost the growth race, because a/(a+E) < 1. We could prove that:

a log (a + E log a) < (a + E) log a.

So we even have

70 log (70 + log70) < 71 log 70, (Calculator says: 301.519... < 301.643...)

or

(70 + log 70) ^ 70 < 70 ^ 71. (The LHS is bigger than 71^70) (big numbers...)

In other words, (since log(70) = 4.248... )

(74.248...)^70 < 70^71

I probably should've used 70 and 1 instead of a and E all along for simplicity, but I ended up saying everything twice instead. I don't think I'll change it now, though.

Matthew Bond - 5 years, 9 months ago

Yikes, why did I name a variable e? I went back and changed it to capital E so it doesn't look like base-e, which is actually an important number here.

Matthew Bond - 5 years, 9 months ago
Tomás Zambrano
Aug 8, 2015

just follow this 2^3 < 3^2

ur method is brutally wrong

govind goel - 5 years, 10 months ago

Shouldn't that imply that 71^70 > 70^71?

Namit Pandit - 5 years, 10 months ago

this is wrong because 3^4>4^3........

santhosh kumar - 5 years, 9 months ago
Uttkarsh Singh
Sep 23, 2016

Yah we can do by binomial theorem too. But my friend have already done that! So I have a different approach. Let 71 =2, and 70 =2 so we have 2^70and 2^71 which is bigger we know! Just fun!

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...