Can a Sequence be Simplified Using Exponent Rules?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nobahar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequence
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of a sequence involving powers of 2 and a series of additive terms. The original poster presents a sequence and seeks assistance in simplifying it using exponent rules.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the structure of the sequence, questioning how the terms relate to each other and whether functions like max() are applicable. There are attempts to express the sequence in a more simplified mathematical form, with some participants sharing their interpretations and formulations.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, providing hints and suggestions. Some guidance has been offered regarding the structure of the nth term and the patterns within the sequence. There is an ongoing exploration of the correct formulation, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of formatting issues with LaTeX and confusion regarding the use of specific functions, indicating potential constraints in expressing mathematical ideas clearly. The original poster also notes a misunderstanding regarding the variable used in their equation.

nobahar
Messages
482
Reaction score
2
Hi guys,
the x's are supposed to be *, as in 2x2 is supposed to be 2*2, it won't listen to me.
I was wondering if it is possible to simplify this sequence:

[tex]1)2[/tex]

[tex]2)2^2 +4[/tex]

[tex]3)2^3 +(2 * 4) + 6[/tex]

[tex]4)2^4 + (2^2 * 4) + (2 * 6) +8[/tex]

[tex]5)2^5 + (2^3 * 4) + (2^2 * 6) + (2 * 8) + 10[/tex]

[tex]6)2^6 + (2^4 * 4) + (2^3 * 6) + (2^2 * 8) + (2 * 10) + 12[/tex]

I've made a few attempts but there are not satisfactory:
[tex]2^n + 2^n-2 * (n-(n-2))+2^n-3 * (n-(n-4))+...+2^2 * (2n-2) + 2^0 * 2n[/tex]
Any help appreciated
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's pretty easy to do if you're able to use functions like max().

- Warren
 
Yeah, my attempt in Latex code didn't look how it was supposed to, I'm not particularly good with Latex. Thanks for the advice, I'll go look up Max().
 
The only maximum function my maths textbook gives me is for trig and for calculus. Maximum values in trig don't apply here, and I can't see the application of the maximum in calculus here either. Any further advice, hints, or tips?
 
nobahar said:
Hi guys,
the x's are supposed to be *, as in 2x2 is supposed to be 2*2, it won't listen to me.
I was wondering if it is possible to simplify this sequence:

[tex]1)2[/tex]

[tex]2)2^2 +4[/tex]

[tex]3)2^3 +(2 * 4) + 6[/tex]

[tex]4)2^4 + (2^2 * 4) + (2 * 6) +8[/tex]

[tex]5)2^5 + (2^3 * 4) + (2^2 * 6) + (2 * 8) + 10[/tex]

[tex]6)2^6 + (2^4 * 4) + (2^3 * 6) + (2^2 * 8) + (2 * 10) + 12[/tex]

I've made a few attempts but there are not satisfactory:
[tex]2^n + 2^n-2 * (n-(n-2))+2^n-3 * (n-(n-4))+...+2^2 * (2n-2) + 2^0 * 2n[/tex]
Any help appreciated

It looks like you're on the right track. The nth term of your sequence will have n terms in it, with the first term being 2^n. The other n - 1 terms seem to follow their own pattern.

In each of the remaining n - 1 terms, you have the product of 2 to some power and twice a number. The exponent on 2 starts at n - 2 and works its way down to 0. The "twice a number" factor starts at 2*2 and works its way up to 2*n.

Does that help?
 
Thanks so much for your help Mark.
Okay, I think this is right, after some further simplification:
[tex]2^n+2\sum_{a=2}^n a2^{n-a}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Can I assume that this is what you're looking for? Your comment about being stuck at n = 6 made me unsure.
 
Sorry, the equation I posted with 'n' is the one I wanted. Previously I entered 6 in it's place accidently (I was reading it from my working and used one where I subtituted n with 6 to test the equation) and when I edited the Latex in the post it didn't change from 6 to n (I assumed there would be a delay of 24 hours or soemthing), but it has now. If that makes sense!
But yes, the equation, as it appears above (with 'n'), is it correct?
 
It looks like what I described. If your formula gives you the right values for the numbers in your sequence, I think all is good!
 
  • #10
Thanks Mark: I tried it with two (an exhaustive test), and it appears to work. It is certainly simplified! Thankyou.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K