B How to compare two huge numbers with nested exponentials?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter xopek
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Compare Numbers
AI Thread Summary
Comparing two large numbers represented as nested exponentials, such as a^b^c^d and w^x^y^z, poses challenges due to their immense size. Logarithmic transformations can simplify comparisons, but applying logarithms to nested powers can lead to complications. While log(a^b^c) can be expressed as b^c log a, further simplifications may not yield manageable results if b^c remains large. Attempts to derive a general approach for reducing nested exponentials through consecutive logarithmic applications have shown limited success. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the complexity of comparing such numbers without direct computation.
xopek
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Let's say we have two numbers represented as a "tower" of exponentials, a^b^c^d and w^x^y^z (powers calculated right to left) and we want to compare them, not necessarily calculating their values. Their values are so huge, they can't be represented on a computer or calculator. Is it possible to use logarithms to compare them? I know that it is possible for a simple case, say, a^b and x^y. We can apply log to both sides and then compare b log a and y log x. But what about nested powers? We can represent log(a^b^c) as b^c log a. But what if b^c is still huge. Can we continue and end up with something like c* log(b) * log(a)? A quick test shows that this is probably not going to work. Any ideas? Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
xopek said:
...We can represent log(a^b^c) as b^c log a. But what if b^c is still huge. Can we continue and end up with something like c* log(b) * log(a)? A quick test shows that this is probably not going to work. Any ideas? Thanks
log(bc⋅log(a)) = c⋅log(b)+log(log(a)) , not what you have.
 
SammyS said:
log(bc⋅log(a)) = c⋅log(b)+log(log(a)) , not what you have.
Ah, right, thank you. So do you think the general approach is otherwise correct?

Let's say in c⋅log(b)+log(log(a)) c is not just c but to the power of d. I am not sure, would I need to apply log to the sum? In other words, is there a general approach to get rid of all the nested exponentials by applying log consecutively? I am not sure what to do here:
log( cd⋅log(b)+log(log(a)))
 
Last edited:
xopek said:
Ah, right, thank you. So do you think the general approach is otherwise correct?

Let's say in c⋅log(b)+log(log(a)) c is not just c but to the power of d. I am not sure, would I need to apply log to the sum? In other words, is there a general approach to get rid of all the nested exponentials by applying log consecutively? I am not sure what to do here:
log( cd⋅log(b)+log(log(a)))
Once you have that sum, taking the log doesn't 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...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
96
Views
11K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
2K
Back
Top