Decimal / Rational Exponents BY HAND

AI Thread Summary
To evaluate an arbitrary rational exponent like 3.4^{2.1} by hand, it can be broken down into 3.4^{2} * 3.4^{0.1}. Calculating the tenth root manually is challenging, and traditional methods often involve using logarithms. The expression can be rewritten as 3.4^{2.1} = exp(2.1 * log(3.4)), allowing for the use of logarithm tables for evaluation. Newton's method is mentioned as a possible approach, but historically, logarithmic tables were the primary tool for such calculations. Understanding these techniques is essential for solving problems without a calculator.
EebamXela
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm reviewing for a test. One of my questions on the review (and incidentally a question I've had in my own mind for a long time) is how do you evaluate an ARBITRARY rational exponent with pencil and paper and no calculator?

The specific problem i was givens is "Solve without a calculator: 3.4^{2.1} "

I know the expression can be broken up to look like this:

3.4^{2} * 3.4^{0.1}

But how in the world can you calculate the tenth root of something on paper.

Or perhaps I'm missing some critical trick or rule or something. Please help.

Can you only practically use Newton's method?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Probably this won't help you, but what people in the old days (before calculators) would do, is to convert the expression to
<br /> 3.4^{2.1} = \exp(2.1 \times \log(3.4))<br />
and then look up logarithms and antilogarithms in a table like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handbook_of_Mathematical_Functions_with_Formulas,_Graphs,_and_Mathematical_Tables" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This thread may be of some help.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top