20121123, 21:43  #1 
Jun 2012
2·53 Posts 
(xy)^2 when x and y are powers of two is solved!!
I have found some weird way of expressing the expression (redundant, he he) (xy)^{2}, and I have no idea as to why it works when x and y are powers of two  see the image for the conjecture and expressions:
Last fiddled with by f1pokerspeed on 20121123 at 21:46 
20121123, 22:35  #2 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5·223 Posts 
Please recheck your notation. In particular, if x and y are both perfect powers of 2, they will be integers. You seem to be saying that (xy)^2 = d /xy^3, which would mean that the LHS (an integer) is equal to the RHS (a rational quantity, not always an integer). Your notation seems confused. Think about what you are trying to say, and recast it more clearly. Also consider trying some small examples for x and y.

20121124, 00:38  #3  
"Forget I exist"
Jul 2009
Dartmouth NS
2·5^{2}·13^{2} Posts 
Quote:
Last fiddled with by science_man_88 on 20121124 at 00:39 

20121124, 13:50  #4 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA
5×223 Posts 
Stepping through this a little further...
"When x and y are a perfect power of two" implies that x = 2^k and y = 2^m for some nonnegative integers k, m. Without loss of generality, let us make k >= m, i.e. make x >= y. "The following formula can be used as a generalization to solve the expression (xy)^2". Not sure what "generalization" means in this context; perhaps the simple word "method" might be a better fit. And expressions cannot be "solved". But *equations* can be solved. Expressions are generally *evaluated*. In any event, you claim that (xy)^2 = 1/d * (y^2) + xy, where "d is the difference in the powers of x and y, i.e. 2^d = 2^x  2^y and d = SQRT(2^d)." This is a notational nightmare, and essentially obliterates any sort of meaning from the problem as you have stated it. Let's try to salvage some sensibility. I assume that for x = 2^k and y = 2^m, with k >= m, you want d = k  m = log2(x)  log2(y). Now y^2 = (2^m)^2 = 2^(2m) by the rules for exponentiating exponents. Moreover, xy = (2^k)(2^m) = 2^(k+m) by the rules for multiplying exponents. Hence your claim that (xy)^2 = 1/d * (y^2) + xy boils down to (2^(k+m))^2 = 1/d * 2^(2m) + 2^(k+m), or 2^(2k+2m) = 1/d * 2^(2m) + 2^(k+m). Subtracting 2^(k+m) from both sides would yield 2^(2k+2m)  2^(k+m) = 1/d * 2^(2m). Next, factor the left hand side to get [2^(k+m)] * [2^(k+m)  1] = 1/d * 2^(2m). Remember that k >= m. Therefore, k + m >= 2m, so that we may divide both sides of the above equation by 2^(2m), yielding by properties of division of exponents [2^(k+m2m)] * [2^(k+m)  1] = 1/d, or [2^(km)] * [2^(k+m)  1] = 1/d. Now recall that k, m are nonnegative integers. That means that the left hand side of the above equation is a nonnegative integer. More importantly, it also means that the *right hand side*, namely 1/d must also be a nonnegative integer. The only time this occurs is for d = 1, which implies 1/d = 1. But then we must have both of the factors on the left hand side equal to 1, which is impossible because the factors are of different parity (one is a power of two, hence even; the other is one less than a power of two, hence odd). We have thus reached a contradiction, and the stated "identity" must therefore be incorrect. *Q. E. D.* As a side note, writing statements such as d = SQRT(2^d), where a variable name is used not only for more than one quantity, but recursively in its own definition(!), is a huge faux pas in mathematics. Definitely something to avoid. Think about this: Suppose d = 5. Then you are saying that 5 = SQRT(2^5) = SQRT(32)! 
20121124, 21:52  #5 
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
769 Posts 
The only possibilities for "d" are 2 and 4 because sqrt(2^{2})=sqrt(4)=2 and sqrt(2^{4})=sqrt(16)=4.
As the OP said, (xy)^{2}=y^{2}/d+xy. If x=2^{m} and y=2^{n} then it becomes 2^{2m+2n}=2^{2n}/d+2^{m+n} and simplifying results in 4^{m+n}=4^{n}/d+2^{m+n} Last fiddled with by Stargate38 on 20121124 at 22:38 
20121124, 22:47  #6 
Jun 2012
2·53 Posts 
Thanks for all of your input on this, and I think I get the hang of what is being said here. Sorry about all of the flaws that there are in my original post, I'm kinda new to writing in mathematical notation (in this context, anyways.)

20121125, 00:05  #7 
"Daniel Jackson"
May 2011
14285714285714285714
1401_{8} Posts 
Dividing both sides by 2^{n} results in 4^{m}2^{n}=2^{n}/d+2^{m}. Substituting 2 or 4 for d gives the following 2 possibilities:
4^{m}2^{n}=2^{n1}+2^{m} (d=2) 4^{m}2^{n}=2^{n2}+2^{m} (d=4) Dividing both sides by 2^{n} again gives: 4^{m}=1/2+2^{mn} (d=2) 4^{m}=1/4+2^{mn} (d=4) since 4=2^{2}, the equations become: 2^{2m}=1/2+2^{mn} (d=2) 2^{2m}=1/4+2^{mn} (d=4) Last fiddled with by Stargate38 on 20121125 at 00:09 Reason: insert "d" values 
Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Two more Hilbert problems were solved... not  Batalov  Miscellaneous Math  5  20180922 20:14 
roundoff = 0.224. Normal? Yes. [solved]  Fred  Software  3  20160205 00:01 
2^x using powers of e?  nibble4bits  Math  31  20071211 12:56 
Powers, and more powers  Numbers  Puzzles  3  20050713 04:42 
Certicom 109bit challenge solved  ewmayer  Math  2  20021109 00:21 