How to calculate 167^0,2 without a calculator

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kev.thomson96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculator
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the calculation of 167 raised to the power of 0.2 (or 1/5) without the use of a calculator. Participants explore various methods including roots, logarithms, and binomial expansion, while also engaging in a light-hearted exchange about the use of historical calculation tools.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that 167^(0.2) can be expressed as the fifth root of 167, leading to the notation 5√167, but struggles to proceed further.
  • Another participant suggests estimating the fifth root by testing values, starting with 2.5 and then trying 2.75, to find a suitable approximation.
  • A different approach is introduced using the first two terms of a binomial expansion to approximate 167^(1/5), relating it to 243 and a correction term.
  • There is a question about whether the use of logarithm tables is permitted for the calculation.
  • A participant explains how to use logarithms to find the value, noting the need to express 167 in a suitable form for logarithmic calculation.
  • Concerns are raised about the availability of logarithm tables and the practicality of using them in modern contexts, accompanied by humorous anecdotes about historical calculation tools.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the methods to calculate 167^(0.2), with no consensus on a single approach. Some favor numerical estimation, while others explore logarithmic methods.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in using logarithm tables due to the specific range of values they cover, which may complicate the calculation process.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in mathematical problem-solving techniques, particularly those exploring methods for calculating roots and logarithms without digital tools.

kev.thomson96
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I was wondering how that could be done.


I tried 0,2 ---> 1/5, then 167 ^(1/5) , which should lead to 5√167 (fifth root of 167) , but I can't seem to move on from there
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
0,2= 1/5 so you are asking for the principal fifth root of 167. I note that 2^5= 32 and 3^5= 243 so I would next try 2.5. 2.5^5= 97.65625 (yes, I did that "by hand"!). That's less than 167 so I would try 2.75 next and keep going until I got sufficient accuracy.
 
I did it using the first two terms of a binomial expansion.

$$167^\frac{1}{5} = \left( 243 - 76 \right) = 243^\frac{1}{5} \left(1 - \frac{76}{243} \right)^\frac{1}{5} \doteq 3 -\frac{1}{5} \frac{76}{81}$$
 
Kos Drago said:
I was wondering how that could be done.


I tried 0,2 ---> 1/5, then 167 ^(1/5) , which should lead to 5√167 (fifth root of 167) , but I can't seem to move on from there

Are you allowed to use log tables?
 
I don't think so, but I'd like you to elaborate if you can solve it with log.
 
If x= 167^{0,2} the log(x)= 0,2 log(167).

So: look up the logarithm of 167 in your log table, multiply by 0,2 then look up the number whose logarithm is that.
 
Note: you will not find logarithm of just 167. log table I have here (base 10) contains logs of numbers between 1 and 10, so you will need to express 167 as 1.67*100 and then log(167) = log(1.67)+2.

Not that it changes the general idea, just makes it a little bit more convoluted.
 
"log table I have here..."

Not sure I could put a finger on a log table if pressed. It reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago (1990-ish) with a historian
Historian: "Do you have a slide rule I can use?"
Me: "No, I haven't had one for many years."
Historian: "I thought every mathematician had one."
Me: "Before you go, do you have any papyrus I could have?"
Historian: "Why would you think we still use that?"

He didn't get my humor.
 
statdad said:
"log table I have here..."

Not sure I could put a finger on a log table if pressed. It reminds me of a conversation I had many years ago (1990-ish) with a historian
Historian: "Do you have a slide rule I can use?"
Me: "No, I haven't had one for many years."
Historian: "I thought every mathematician had one."
Me: "Before you go, do you have any papyrus I could have?"
Historian: "Why would you think we still use that?"

He didn't get my humor.
I haven't used any of mine for some time, but I still have a few slide rules around.
 
  • #10
I still have two, but they are in my house, on the same shelves as the old roll film cameras my father had 85 years ago.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K