| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Jul 2008 17:52:52 IST
|
|
|
method? JUST TRY..?2000^2001 or 2001^2000 which is greater???????
|
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Jul 2008 18:02:43 IST
|
|
|
Let x=20002001 y=20012000
apply log both sides apply log both sides
logx=2001(log(2000)) logy=2000(log2001)
logx=2001(log(2*1000)) logy=2000(3.3012)
logx=2001(log2+log1000) logy=6602.4
logx=2001(0.3010+3)
logx=2001(3.3010)
logx=6605.301
Therefore logx > logy
x > y
20002001 > 20012000
Rate me if useful
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you can also use congruency for this.
|
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically. ~~~Albert Einstein (1879-1955)~~~~
To divide a cube into two other cubes, a fourth power or in general any power whatever into two powers of the same denomination above the second is impossible, and I have assuredly found an admirable proof of this, but the margin is too narrow to contain it.~~~Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665)~~~
     |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Jul 2008 19:01:52 IST
|
|
|
how congureny???????/
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Jul 2008 19:11:43 IST
|
|
|
You can try proving it using LMVT (lagrange man value theorem)
|
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Jul 2008 19:35:09 IST
|
|
|

|
"Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions - Why am I doing it, What the results might be and Will I be successful. Only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions, go ahead."
Chanakya quotes (Indian politician, strategist and writer, 350 BC-275 BC) |
this reply: 0 points
(with 0 
in 0 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 16 Jul 2008 19:45:15 IST
|
|
|
One way is to consider the function f(x) = . Prove that for x>e, this is a decreasing function.
It is also a useful fact to remember the order in the following series
![1<\sqrt [2] 2< \sqrt [3] 3>\sqrt [4] 4>\sqrt [5] 4>...>\sqrt [n] n>....](http://alt2.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/latexrender/pictures/d/4/1/d418d03dc9562d58d4ca82971fa8209f88f10f32.gif)
Now, you can use this result to finish the problem
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 22 points
(with 4 
in 5 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|