Wonderful exponent tower property

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of exponent towers, specifically focusing on a claim that an exponent tower composed of parts each equal to \( p^{1/p} \) equals \( p \) for positive integers \( p \). Participants explore specific cases, particularly \( p=2 \), and the challenges in proving this property.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that for a positive integer \( p \), the exponent tower of \( p^{1/p} \) equals \( p \), using \( p=2 \) as an example.
  • Another participant challenges the initial claim, stating that the expression as written does not hold true and provides a corrected formulation that leads to the conclusion for the case of \( p=2 \).
  • A third participant expresses a sense of revelation regarding the nature of the claim, likening it to a personal discovery.
  • A fourth participant clarifies the notation of power towers, suggesting that the terms used may have been misapplied in the original problem.
  • One participant presents a proof that the sequence of square roots of 2 converges to 2, outlining the bounded and increasing nature of the sequence and the solutions to the equation \( x=(\sqrt{2})^{x} \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the original claim regarding exponent towers. There are competing views on the correct formulation and interpretation of the problem, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the general case.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the notation and definitions used in the discussion, particularly regarding the structure of exponent towers versus power towers. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in proving the general case for \( p \).

meemoe_uk
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
Hi dudes, don't be put off by the clumsy notation here.

I was wondering about these particular exponent towers and this curious property of theirs...

Let p be a positive integer. Then the exponent tower, composed of p+1 parts each of value p^(1/p), equals p.

e.g. for p=2.
tower part = 2^(1/2)
(2^(1/2))^ ((2^(1/2))^(2^(1/2)))=2
bah, this looks clumsy, but it's concise written by hand, i.e. a 3 part exponent tower.

Anyway, I heard that it's difficult to prove any particular case for p, let alone the general case. I had a go myself for case p=2. I set x equals exponent tower and tried to show x=2, but I got nowhere.

Can anyone post the easiest proof for case p=2?, or any other case?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Well, that isn't true as you've written it, since the only number you can raise [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] to to get 2 is 2 (did I mention 2?). However, if you write it like this:

[tex]((\sqrt{2})^{\sqrt{2}})^{\sqrt{2}} = (\sqrt{2})^{\sqrt{2}\cdot\sqrt{2}} = (\sqrt{2})^2=2[/tex]

Then it is true, and it is clear how this extends to the general case.
 
Doops, well that's another of reality's amazing mysterys unweaved. Feels like the time I discovered santa claus didn't really exist.
 
And FYI, a power tower looks like this:

[tex]a^{a^{a^\ldots}}[/tex]

and not

[tex]((a^a)^a)^\ldots[/tex]

A quick google search reveals that people seem to use exponent tower to mean the same thing... so it sounds like whoever posed the problem to you has their terms wrong. :frown:
 
However, the power tower SEQUENCE of square roots of 2 does converge to 2.

Here's a proof:
1. The sequence is bounded above by 2. This is seen in that each member of the sequence must be less than the number where the last square root of 2 is replaced by a 2. That number is easily sen to be 2.

2. The sequence is increasing, by 1., it must therefore converge to some number x.

3. x must satisfy the equation:
[tex]x=(\sqrt{2})^{x}[/tex]
This equation has two solutions; x=2 and x=4
Since 2 is the lesser upper bound, the tower converges to 2, rather than to 4
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
999
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K