| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 May 2008 09:50:42 IST
|
|
|
Which one is larger? 10099 or 99100.
Please give the solution.
|
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)~~~
 |
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 May 2008 10:07:02 IST
|
|
|
The second one
|
The one man Dynasty !!!!!!!!
|
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) 13 May 2008 10:09:56 IST
|
|
|
I think (99)100 is the ans,bcoz
(99)100=(99)99+(99)99+........99 times.
(100)99=(99+1)99=(99)99+99c1(99)98+99c2(99)97+.......+1
In the second expansion,From the third term onwards,the terms are very less compared to those of first expansion.Hence the ans.
|
MAKING A MISTAKE IS HUMAN BUT REPEATING IT IS IDIOTIC. |
this reply: 10 points
(with 2 
in 2 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 May 2008 10:10:06 IST
|
|
|
(99)100 > (100)99
Because,
(100)99 = (99+1)99
= 99C0 (99)99 + 99C1(99)98 + ....................... + 1
= (99)99 + (99).(99)98 +............... + 1
= 2.(99)99 + terms relatively much smaller terms
and this is much smaller than 99.(99)99 i.e (99)100
|
this reply: 5 points
(with 1 
in 1 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You must note that the proofs you suppy should be conclusive. There should be nothing left hanging in the air to be guessed or surmised.
Comparing and is equivalent to comparing and 
Now consider the function  = \sqrt [x] {x})
 = \frac{1 - \log x}{x^2})
Hence for x>1, f is a decreasing function.
Thus, we deduce that .
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 27 points
(with 5 
in 6 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
![[Post New]](/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) 13 May 2008 15:29:46 IST
|
|
|
thanx hsbhatt sir
plz give us some more tips like this.
|
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) 17 May 2008 21:40:29 IST
|
|
|
excuse me hsbhatt sir, it is decresing function for x > 10. and not x > 1.
plz say where am i wrong.
|
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) 18 May 2008 09:40:12 IST
|
|
|
Thanx for pointing out the error. It is a decreasing function for x>e and not x>1 as i posted before
Here the log is taken to the base e
So, if x>e, then 
Hence for x>e
|
Time wounds all heels |
this reply: 5 points
(with 1 
in 1 votes ) [?]
|
|
You have to be logged on to rate
|
|
|
|
|