Swedish Mathematics Olympiad | 2002 Question 4

We look at a solution to a number theory problem from the 2002 Sweden Mathematics olympiad.
Please Subscribe: kzbin.info...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/michael-...
Personal Website: www.michael-penn.net
Randolph College Math: www.randolphcollege.edu/mathem...
Randolph College Math and Science on Facebook: / randolph.science
Research Gate profile: www.researchgate.net/profile/...
Google Scholar profile: scholar.google.com/citations?...
If you are going to use an ad-blocker, considering using brave and tipping me BAT!
brave.com/sdp793
Buy textbooks here and help me out: amzn.to/31Bj9ye
Buy an amazon gift card and help me out: amzn.to/2PComAf
Books I like:
Sacred Mathematics: Japanese Temple Geometry: amzn.to/2ZIadH9
Electricity and Magnetism for Mathematicians: amzn.to/2H8ePzL
Abstract Algebra:
Judson(online): abstract.ups.edu/
Judson(print): amzn.to/2Xg92wD
Dummit and Foote: amzn.to/2zYOrok
Gallian: amzn.to/2zg4YEo
Artin: amzn.to/2LQ8l7C
Differential Forms:
Bachman: amzn.to/2z9wljH
Number Theory:
Crisman(online): math.gordon.edu/ntic/
Strayer: amzn.to/3bXwLah
Andrews: amzn.to/2zWlOZ0
Analysis:
Abbot: amzn.to/3cwYtuF
How to think about Analysis: amzn.to/2AIhwVm
Calculus:
OpenStax(online): openstax.org/subjects/math
OpenStax Vol 1: amzn.to/2zlreN8
OpenStax Vol 2: amzn.to/2TtwoxH
OpenStax Vol 3: amzn.to/3bPJ3Bn
My Filming Equipment:
Camera: amzn.to/3kx2JzE
Lense: amzn.to/2PFxPXA
Audio Recorder: amzn.to/2XLzkaZ
Microphones: amzn.to/3fJED0T
Lights: amzn.to/2XHxRT0
White Chalk: amzn.to/3ipu3Oh
Color Chalk: amzn.to/2XL6eIJ

[@patrickwienhoft7987]

8:35 underlining inequality signs is usually not the best way to emphasize them ;)

[@elefesel]

I think that's why he's using a different colour to do this:)

[@kurt.dresner]

I will draw a line through this equals sign to emphasize it ≠

[@NuisanceMan]

The best way to emphasize a capital "I" is to draw a horizontal line on top of it. At least, T think so.

[@landsgevaer]

@@NuisanceMan / think extreme italics work well.

[@arpansingh2116]

Can't believe I'm watching this for entertainment

[@thangphamngoc3897]

lool me too

[@dananajj]

I'm watching this to fall asleep

[@NickiRusin]

ikr, it's super fun

[@RosidinAli]

Lol me too

[@wassollderscheiss33]

That's because he is (somewhat) entertaining

[@davidbrisbane7206]

I have noticed that if there is an easy way to prove something, then Michael will point it out and then prove it a harder, but more entertaining and often a more general way :-).

[@falknfurter]

That's true. In mathematics important theorems are often proved in different ways using different techniques. Examples are e.g. theorem of pythagoras or the law of quadratic reciprocity. By this you can understand relations between different areas of mathematics.

[@wospy1091]

All he did in this proof was use Calculus instead of induction. You could even say he did it the easy way.

[@davidbrisbane7206]

@@wospy1091 Induction is easier.

[@gabriel7233]

@@davidbrisbane7206 not for everyone but it's clearly more elementary

[@iabervon]

@@gabriel7233 Additionally, if you know both techniques, the work for induction in this case is easier. 2^(n-7) > 128n > 128 implies 2^((n+1)-7)=2*2^(n-7)>128n+128=128(n+1).

[@Miju001]

I like the method that was chosen to prove the inequality - it proves it not only for natural numbers, but for all real numbers as well.

[@x_gosie]

Same!

[@SREproducciones]

This is a high school math problem, so derivatives are an overkill. There is a simpler way, and for a kid trying these problems that solution is more useful.

[@vedhase2370]

May I know why it isn't equal to 1?? I am not really good at math. Someone, please help me out.

[@x_gosie]

@@vedhase2370 The first thing you need to know are the statement gaving, by the problem.

[@randomdude9135]

@@vedhase2370 cuz let's say 1=n^(1/n-7) Then taking log on bs we get 0=(1/n-7)xlog(n) Now (1/n-7) is non zero as n>=8 => logn =0 => n=1 Which is a contradiction. QED

[@pratikmaity4315]

He explained so many stuffs in a single video. This shows how different math problems are related to each other!!

[@ckeimel]

I think that this is one of the beauty of maths. There's so much ways to interpret something that you can always found a new one. For example, one of the most relevant theorems of math is The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and one of the most important consequences is the fact that links algebra with the study of functions (calculus).

[@pratikmaity4315]

@@ckeimel True to say

[@vedhase2370]

May I know why it isn't equal to 1?? I am not really good at math. Someone, please help me out.

[@ckeimel]

@@vedhase2370 wich part of the solution troubles you?

[@derhamcohomology]

What I've learnt from this channel is to start every math problem by considering case n=1.

[@takyc7883]

Fun fact, we know that 0

[@35571113]

Ha ha! How?

[@volodyanarchist]

@@35571113 You take 5th root of pi and 17 by hand, everybody is so impressed they ignore the fact that you didn't prove anything yet.

[@84y87]

@@volodyanarchist lmao

[@vedhase2370]

May I know why it isn't equal to 1?? I am not really good at math. Someone, please help me out.

[@ASD128London]

@@vedhase2370 I was wondering that too.

[@ireallyhatemakingupnamesfo1758]

N^(1/n-7)>1 The proof of this is obvious and left as an exercise to the reader

[@AnindyaMahajan]

It is obvious. a^x is a strictly increasing function for a>1 and equals 1 at only x=0.

[@richardconrardy9673]

*n^(1/(n-7))>1

[@josem138]

I don't quite get the fact he is doing too much to prove that sentence. There is no number greater than 8 multiplied by itself n-7 times going to give a number lesser or equal than 1, enough proof.

[@jamesjohnson4695]

@@josem138 Not multiplied by itself (n-7) times, but 1/(n-7) times. But yes the claim is still trivial.

[@rhaq426]

@@AnindyaMahajan I don't see why. a^y means a is a real constant and y is the input. Here a = x (so a is not a constant) and y = 1/(x-7). After x>=8, the function (x^(1/(x-7))) is strictly decreasing. Apart from looking at the graph what other proof is there? Edit: Actually after giving it some thought I see it is obvious since x^(1/(x-7)) = 1 when 1/(x-7) = 0 which leads to: 1 = 0 So x^(1/(x-7)) is never 1 and since the function is strictly decreasing it will never be less than 1 either.

[@dariensisko0]

Although it was excluded right at the beginning, n=1 would be a solution as 1^x=1\in N for any x.

[@MK-13337]

7:10 is not equivalent, but you only need the reverse implication here. f(x) >0 everywhere => f(n) > 0 for natural numbers

[@xenofurmi]

Showing the "obvious" parts and "the long way" is so so good. It's how we all learn. Very good job!

[@tomaszgaazka6777]

Without induction, in my opinion the easiest way is to use binomial coefficients. n < 2^(n-7) for n >=11 is equivalent to n+7 < 2^n for n>=4. We check n=4 and n=5 by hand and for n>5 we have 2^n = (1+1)^n > (n choose 0) + (n choose 1) + (n choose n-1) + (n choose n) = 1 + n + n + 1 = 2 + 2n > n + 7.

[@robwsur]

beautiful idea

[@TheOneSevenNine]

great as always. love when you just underline something and mark it as "clear." that's how you know you're watching a real mathematician

[@hrishikeshkulkarni2320]

I love this channel, awesome the way you spent a several seconds and a couple of sentences in proving that 10 is not a perfect cube.

[@harish6787]

I felt this much easier than any other question

[@roboto12345]

For example question 6 of IMO 2020

[@pedroafonso8384]

Yes

[@xz1891]

Bcz it is

[@xz1891]

@@roboto12345 I can only solve Q1 of imo2020

[@paulchapman8023]

Finding the solutions is easy; the hard part is proving that there are no other solutions. It may be easy enough to grasp intuitively, but math requires more proof than just intuition.

[@markfischer5044]

I tried to solve this from the thumbnail, so I missed that we were solving over the natural numbers. I got n = - W(-1, -ln(z) / z^7 ) / ln(z) where z is an integer and W is the Lambert W function aka the ProductLog. Apparently, we need the -1 branch. n. n^(1/n-7) 10.375 2 9 3 8.54777 4 8.31611 5 8.17246 6 8.07331 7 8 8 7.94315 9 7.89749 10 7.85982 11 7.82809 12 7.80089 13 7.77725 14 7.75646 15 7.73799 16...

[@tomatrix7525]

This was a really lovely problem. Well presented Michael, loving your stuff

[@red0guy]

Man who I wish I would have had such videos in high-school almost 20 years ago.

[@demenion3521]

when i first looked at the problem, i found it pretty clear that either the exponents needs to be 1 (which gives 8 as a solution) or n needs to be a perfect power (because otherwise we would never get an integer by taking an (n-7)th root). the rest would be quite similar to what you did, just showing that f(x)=x^(1/(x-7)) is decreasing for x>=8.

[@jole0]

Love your videos, participating in my first olympiad in a month or two

[@rishabhsinha4765]

Good luck!

[@James_Moton]

What olympiad are you attending?

[@jole0]

@@James_Moton Norwegian one

[@asdfghjkl6506]

All the best✌️👍👍

[@35571113]

Good luck!

[@utsav8981]

Me: Sees 1/n-7 *Ezee* Me: Sees n just below it *crap*

[@0xDEAD_Inside]

Same

[@84y87]

1/n-7 is integer only for n=6,8

[@alex-cm9fd]

Dorulo ili kvo

[@vedhase2370]

May I know why it isn't equal to 1?? I am not really good at math. Someone, please help me out.

[@ethanyap8680]

@@vedhase2370 very late,but since 1/(n-7) is positive, n^(1/(n-7)) > n^(0) = 1

[@calebbirnbaum4605]

The work is pleasingly clear and labeled

[@stevenwilson5556]

This channel is such a gem, more people should be watching this stuff.

[@shurik3nz346]

No, a person.can watch what they want on youtube.

[@shurik3nz346]

Abacus, should and must are different

[@shurik3nz346]

Abacus , ahh I see. Thanks for enlightening me.

[@stevenwilson5556]

@@shurik3nz346 I wasn't advocating strapping people to chairs and prying their eyes open Clock of Orange style; I meant that people would benefit but most people are ignorant of this channel's existence.

[@shurik3nz346]

@@stevenwilson5556 haha alright

[@lawandeconomics1]

I probably would have turned back after taking the derivative. Thanks for an unusually clear and direct work-through!

[@dumbledort9755]

the equivalence at 7:30 is false. But the implication b=>a is enough to prove the result (b result with x in R).

[@Nicolas-zf3pv]

Why the equivalence is false? I had seen other comments claiming the same thing, one of them said that f(x) is negative for some real numbers, but how can this be true for x>= 11?

[@dyidyirr]

@@Nicolas-zf3pv It's not clear that if f(n)>0 for n>=11, n integer then f(x)>0 for x>11, x real. In this case the equivalency holds because f is continuous and monotonous. But it doesn't hold for any f. He proves later that it's monotonous, so with that bit from the proof (and the fact that the function is clearly continuous) he could prove that the equivalency holds as well. He doesn't need to, because the other direction is sufficient. But the way he writes it, it's not sufficient.

[@lucas0m0james]

I just directly differentiated the original function extended to the reals, showed that was negative for n>=8 and then by exploration found that 8&9 were the only solutions.

[@gaufqwi]

The problem with underlining an inequality to emphasize its strictness is then you make it nonstrict 🤣

[@vedhase2370]

May I know why it isn't equal to 1?? I am not really good at math. Someone, please help me out.

[@paulchapman8023]

@@vedhase2370 Maybe he considered the fact that 1^n = 1 for all real values of n not worth commenting on.

[@kadenxu5142]

@@vedhase2370 well, any number to the zero ith power is equal to one, ex 3^0 = 1 and 7^0 = 1. The problem states that n is greater than or equal to eight. 1/(n-7) is always going to be greater than 0 if n is greater than eight. That means that the equation basically boils down to n^(a number greater than 0). In order for the whole equation to be less then or equal to one, n must be raised to the power of 0, or less, but since 1/(n-7) is always greater than zero due to the parameters of the question, we know that n^(1/(n-7)) is greater than one. Hope this clears things up

[@jongu71]

I thought of that too, he almost managed to confuse me!

[@rezhaadriantanuharja3389]

My solution substitute x = n - 7 and n = a^x for some integer a to obtain a^x = x + 7. Then obviously for x >= 4 we need a < 2 and we only need to evaluate x = 1,2,3. The only satisfactory pairs (a,x) are (8,1) and (3,2)

[@frederickm9823]

I did another induction: n < 2^(n-7) is true for n=11, then we can say: 2^(n+1-7) = 2*2^(n-7) > 2n = n+n > n+1 (for n>=11) So therefore: n+1

[@miketakeahike4741]

Yeah Sir please do IMO questions also like IMO 2003 P2 number theory and algebra questions

[@parmilakumari3146]

Fun problem

[@miketakeahike4741]

Yeah that would be great

[@Dusk-MTG]

First impression: Holy moly, that's gonna be hard Second impression: But wait, that's gonna be impossible very soon Solution: It's actually just the first 2 allowed numbers I'd say the perceived difficulty of this exercise is a strictly decreasing function of time.

[@KingstonCzajkowski]

It has a spike like x^-2, a discontinuity that occurs when he mentions that we're not using induction

[@RZMATHS]

Well if feel like doing a challenging prob You can try this kzbin.info/www/bejne/n5jHqmNrgb-db5I

[@Jivvi]

I had the opposite experience. My immediate impression (even before I noticed the ≥ 8 condition) was 8 works, 9 works, and then that's it. The more he explained why higher numbers don't work, the more I started to think that there's going to be some other number, probably a multiple of 7, where it equals 1, but that it would be really hard to prove.

[@chilling00000]

IMO is happening now, it would be fun to feature some of the questions from this year

[@islamgaziev1717]

Finally, something I managed to solve before watching the video. Beautiful solution.

[@manucitomx]

A backflip would have been great. I love these videos. It makes me kinda sad I didn’t go for pure instead of applied math.

[@iabervon]

He can't do backflips in videos any more, due to discontinuities outside the domain of the video in the neighborhood of his head. (That is, hanging microphones.)

[@speedsterh]

@@iabervon Excellent !

[@gmchess7367]

Amazing explanation

[@iooooooo1]

8:20 Another nice way to see 2^11 - 128(11) > 0 is to factor a 2^7 out of each term and observe it's true iff (2^4 - 11) > 0. (Even if it's not memorized, 128=2^7 was used earlier in the problem.)

[@GhostyOcean]

I believe you could also use binomial expansion for 2^m to show the inequality as well. Use 2^m = SUM( m choose k) from k=0 to m and use however many terms you want to show that 2^m > 128m

[@knvcsg1839]

That thinking of searching for n>11 is really brilliant.

[@kinshuksingh90]

An arguably quicker way of proving 2^n>128n could have been by plugging n=11 and checking that 2^n is indeed larger and then seeing that the slope of 2^n at n=11 is 1024*11 (chain rule) and that the slope of 128n is 128. Plus the slope of 2^n only keeps on growing whereas 128n has a constant (and lower) slope. Combining f(11)>g(11) and f'(x)>g'(x) for x in [11,∞), you know that f(x)>g(x) ,if f(x)=2^x and g(x)=128x

[@shqotequila]

Love number theory

[@islandman9748]

Excellent! You did your number eight like me until I were 8 years old. I remember my teacher scolded me for it. So far, I do my eights "normally". It was just to annoy you but you're doing a great job!

[@basmamjouel2893]

In order for it to be an element of N then n should be written as n=m^(n-7), with m>=3>e cuz n>8>e (the case of n=8) is trivial) also m=n^m when we play around with the inequality and by replacing values we get n

[@parmilakumari3146]

Could you please do IMO 2003 P2 its a cool question

[@mikkijhuria287]

Nice suggestion

[@mikkijhuria287]

There’s a lot to learn from that problem

[@mikkijhuria287]

Would be grateful if Michael could solve it for us

[@miketakeahike4741]

Yeah great , I hope sir does it

[@parmilakumari3146]

Fun problem

[@riskassure]

From e < 4, we get 1 < 2 ln 2 by taking the natural log on both sides, and then dividing both sides by 2 yields the inequality.

[@RobertMOdell]

n = 1 is a soln

[@DeanCalhoun]

trivial

[@roverdover4449]

good point, missed that.

[@AnkhArcRod]

The problem states that n>=8.

[@RJSRdg]

@@AnkhArcRod But he says the reason the problem says n>=8 is that it doesn't work for n

[@ireallyhatemakingupnamesfo1758]

AnkhArcRod yea, but he said that n=1 wasn't a solution when he was talking about why the bounds of the problem were n>=8

[@ananyashukla2749]

Nicely explained and question was good

[@martinschulz6832]

What about n=1? It's also a solution since 1^(-1/6)=1...

[@PI227]

Hey, Michael. Can you please make a video on problem #6 from the 2009 IMO.

[@ChristianRosenhagen]

One of the best: creative and not too hard!

[@patrickgambill9326]

I used a slightly different approach. I took the derivative of x^(1/(x-7)), and showed it was decreasing for all x greater than or equal to 8. Since we know 1 is our lower bound, and the n=11 case is less than 2, then we know we only need to check 8, 9, and 10

[@asa4766]

Wonderful video, always a pleasure to watch. I was wondering if you Could make a video on the “points in the space” type of problem (I believe it’s called misc but I’m not sure). An example to this type of problem is “There are a 1000 points in the space, prove you could always pass a line such that half the points would be on one side and the other half on the other side”.

[@SupremeChickenx]

this guy has neil patrick harris energy, i love it

[@shreyathebest100]

One of the few number theory problems I silved on my own

[@jakubdutkiewicz5816]

Unless n is in natural, there has to be a solution for f(n) = n^(1/(n-7)) = 2. Note that f is monotonic, continous in (7,+inf> and has an asymptote at f = 1.

[@Omar-of4tz]

set f(x) =x^(1/x-7) arguing the monotony of the function on [8,+∞) let a,b≥8 be real numbers s.t a1/b-7 ⇒ f(a)>f(b) ⇒the function is strictly decreasing on [8,+∞). therefore max(f(x))=f(8)=8. We have 0

[@scottrichmond3548]

Me after seeing thumbnail: "Oh that's easy, it's 8" Me after clicking on video: "Ah, the old bait and switch"

[@dominikstepien2000]

6:55 I don't think it is equivalent because you could take such a function that it would be positive on integers but not always positive for real numbers but anyway that doesn't change the solution

[@handanyldzhan9232]

Let n=b^x. Then we need to observe when b^[x/(b^x-7)] is an integer. That means b^x-7 divides x. For that to be possible, b^x-7 =< x. If x=1, b^x=8. If x>1, then 2^x-7 =< x so x

[@judecarter6095]

By thinking of it as an n-7th root you can also show that n>=2^(n-7) as n!=1 and hence 8

[@rafael7696]

I like very much your olimpiad problems

[@mangai3599]

Well, generally in questions these inequalities are hard to prove but this was not the case in this problem. This was really a nice problem.

[@dneary]

I proved the inequality by swapping n-7=k and proving that 2^k>k+7 for k>=4 - which is easy by expanding (1+1)^k using the binomial theorem and keeping only the kC0, kC1, kC2, kC(n-1)and kCn terms , giving the inequality 2^k>=2+2k+(k)(k-1)/2 > 8+2k for k>=4 >k+7

[@abc13deagosto]

Thank you very much!

[@redolentofmark]

well if you include limit of n as it approaches infinity, then it would equal 1

[@ameerunbegum7525]

Super awesome !

[@ramk4004]

Thank you

[@mohamednejighnimi4860]

it's viable also for n=1 as 1^any number=1 which is an integer.

[@hogehoge1030]

If n^(1/(n-7)) is an integer, then n = m^(n-7) for some integer m greater than or equal to 2. Take a prime divisor p of n and let e be its exponent in the factorization of n. Since n = m^(n-7), the exponent of p in the factorization of m^(n-7) is greater than or equal to n-7 and hence so is a. It thus follows that 2^a - 7 ≦ n - 7 ≦ a. Therefore 2^a - a ≦ 7．Because 2^x - x is increasing on x ≧ 1 and 2^4 - 4 > 7, we have the inequality a ≦ 3; Hence n ≦ 10.

[@hans-juergenbrasch3683]

The function f(x)=x^{1/(x-7)}=e^{ln x/(x-7)} is greater than 1 for x>7 and monotone decreasing, since f'(x)=f(x)/[x(x-7)^2]*[-7-x(ln x -1)]10 we have 1

[@canaDavid1]

Set k = n-7 (k+7)^(1/k) in N, k > 0 (k+7) = m^k, m,k in N k = 1 and 2 are trivial solutions, with m = 8 and 3. Notice that (k+7)^(1/k) = m is strictly decreasing with k, so any other solution would have m = 2. 2^k = k+7 has a solution between 3 and 4, so not in integers. Hence, n in {8,9} are the only solutions.

[@ussenterncc1701e]

For ln(2)>1/2 can't we just operate on both sides with e. Get 2>√e then square both for 4>e. That's true, so the starting inequality was true.

[@AntonBourbon]

11:19 : After reading Richard Feynman's brilliant "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" I can't forget that ln 2 = 0.69... which is clearly bigger than 0.5

[@avin9106]

Thanks for the great videos! Simpler final proof (edit: oops, it's the same): ln(2)>1/2 2>e^(1/2) 4>e

[@MarcoMate87]

Lol, it's the same proof he used, nothing different.

[@avin9106]

@@MarcoMate87 Oh, you're right. I just saw that he started differently and wrote this down quickly.

[@stefanocorno4649]

You can also take the derivative of the function itself. It takes a bit of implicit differentiation but it's not too complex and you get y((x-7)/x-ln(x))/(x-7)^2=y'. Then since you know y is always positive and so is (x-7)^2 (at least whenever x>8, which is the relevant range anyways) you can show (x-7)/x-ln(x) is always negative since (x-7)/x approaches 1 and ln(x) approaches infinity (a bit trickier than just that but that's the idea). Positive * positive * negative = negative. Since the derivative is always negative, and you know for x=10, y8 or whatever the function is always greater than 1, you know the value will always be between 1 and 2 and therefore can't be an integer.

[@user-wt1ul7ki6p]

Please correctly state the question by adding: n ∈ N (natural number). Otherwise, there are more real number solutions for n, since the real function f(x) = x ^ (1/x-7) is a continuous function, and we have f(8)=8 and f(11)

[@AntonioSaracino7]

thank you; brilliant

[@bcwbcw3741]

isn't it easier to take both sides to the power n-7 so we're looking for x^(n-7)=n . x positive integer. since x=1^(n-7) is always 1 and the smallest x is then 2 and 2^(n-7)>n for all n>11 is pretty obvious with no heavy duty math. The induction is just that for n+1, 2*(previous>n)>n+1 .

[@jamirimaj6880]

after watching Numberphile: *I NOW KNOW AND UNDERSTAND MATH! I CAN SOLVE ANY MATH PROBLEMS NOW, I CAN DO IT!* after watching serious Math like this channel: 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

[@mathadventuress]

Right? This is nuts

[@ruslanadayev589]

Can't we just say for the last part: ln(2) > 1/2 e ^ (ln(2)) > e^(1/2) [e to the power of both sides] 2 > e^(1/2) [by definition/properties of logarithm] 4 > e [squaring both sides of the logarithm] Or should x^(log_x(y)) = y (where log_x is log base x) be proven in olympiad setting as well?

[@pradipchaterjee9576]

Do you want a single value of n or other values satisfying the equation

[@potatochipbirdkite659]

The title card asks when the expression is an INTEGER rather than a NATURAL, and doesn't bound it to n >= 8. Solving that, we can include both 1 and -1.

[@Marre2795]

We can include 1 (at n=1) and 0 (at n=0), but I don't think (-1)^(1/(-8)) is an integer. EDIT: n=0 is undefined because 0^(1/-7)=(1/0)^7, and that's dividing by 0. ALSO: The title card doesn't specify that n should be an integer, so if we assume that n can be irrational, we can express all integers greater than 1 as n^(1/(n-7)). f(n)=n^(1/(n-7)) is a continuous function for n>7. All integers greater than 8 will lie between 7

[@yangli3144]

Love the channel, interesting problems and crystal clear explanations! for proving ln 2 > 1/2, maybe it is a bit more straightforward to do: ln 2 = 1/2 * 2 * ln 2 = 1/2 * ln (2^2) = 1/2 * (lg 4 / lg e) > 1/2 ?

[@ddognine]

But, now you have to prove that ln 4 is greater than 1.

[@yangli3144]

@@ddognine I think that's quite straightforward as e=2.7*** < 4. of course, for formal proof one should probably claim on monotonicity of lg function etc.

[@septagram9491]

I really like the ending you make in each video. That's a good place to stop. It feels like maths has an infinite domain one can explore. It's like the opposite of claustrophobia.

[@SQRTime]

Hi Septagram. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider our channel kzbin.info. Hope to see you 😊

[@abhishekkumar-os5zk]

take x= n*power(1/n-7) take log both side logx= 1/n-7 * log n , t= logx n-7* t = logn

[@nasrullahhusnan2289]

I think it is easier to grasp by using Taylor series to show that ln(2)

[@nasrullahhusnan2289]

Sorry the last sentence must be ln(2) < ½ instead.

[@mathunt1130]

This is a nice solution.

[@manusiabiasa7305]

Wow open my mind

[@sujitsivadanam]

0:47 Actually, n = 1 will work (if not for the restriction on n)

[@thewhitefalcon8539]

Observe that for n^(1÷m) to be a natural number all of n's prime factors must have multiplicity that's divisible by m. The smallest such number (other than 1) has prime factorization 2^m (because 2 is the smallest prime) which obviously grows faster than m+7 once you get past about m=4

[@thewhitefalcon8539]

... and obviously 1 isn't the mth root of any number m+7 because it's not the mth root of any number other than 1. Proving this is a waste of time. Unless they score your answer based on how fundamental your proofs go?

[@estolee5485]

This was my approach as well, and I'm surprised I haven't seen more comments about it. It seems way easier than any other solution I have seen

[@JamesLee-pk8oj]

you need not use derivative of f(x). it's enough that just prove f(n+1) > f(n) for all n > 7，which is much easier: 2^(n+1)-128(n+1)-(2^n-128n)=2^n-128 > 0

[@lunascapes]

Yes, that’s the proof by induction.

[@IoT_]

Actually he mentioned the method in the video (proof by induction)

[@84y87]

He mentioned PMI and said he would prove it using a "different" method.

[@oida10000]

Just from think about it: n must be greater than 7 if it is less than that we have 1/(n^(7-n)) which isn't an integer, 8 and 9 both work 8^(1/(8-7))=8^(1/1)=8^1=8 and 9^(1/(9-7))=9^(1/2)=3 but are there more?

[@paulduncan3214]

Unusual use of the word "clear"

[@mathcanbeeasy]

I think it's easier how I solved it. So if n ^ (n-7) is natural, it means that n = k ^ (n-7), with k a natural number. It is immediately verified that n = 8 and n = 9 are solutions and k = 8 and k = 9. For n = 10, the only close k could be 2 becouse 2 ^ 3 = 8 and 3 ^ 3 is 27, much greater than 10. Therefore we observe that for n> = 11, n = 11, n = 2. By induction, P (m) => P (m + 1) So we have m

[@SQRTime]

Hi Adrian. If you are interested in math competitions, please consider our channel kzbin.info. Hope to see you 😊

[@lord_hamza3550]

I think we can also say that n is between 8 and 10 because the first integer to accept a 4th root is 16 and n=11 gives us 4th root of 11 which is impossible.

[@michaelblankenau6598]

Wow.. You are so mathematically facile .Very impressive .

[@danieldomert1022]

A suggestion for a quick and easy proof (it feels almost too easy - are there any flaws in my reasoning?) : f(n)=n^(1/(n-7) >= 8^(1/(n-7)) = 2^(3/(n-7) > 1. When does f(n) get >=2? 2^(3/(n-7))>=2 3/(n-7) >=1 n

[@antman7673]

Also the fact that the minimum prime factorization can be log2(n) indicates that the forth root is only available at the integer 16 at minimum is sort of a proof.

[@stumbling]

What is that called on your hoodie? That is something I found myself but I don't know what it is called or why it works.

[@TheCloudyoshi]

Is it mathematically sound to just take the derivative of f(x)=x^(1/(x-7)), and prove that the derivative is negative for all x>=8? (Then by spot checks you can figure out for all x>10, f(x) is between 1 and 2.) The function would be differentiable for all x>7 I believe...

[@noedeverchere2833]

For the final proof, can't we say that because ln2>1/2, so by applying natural exponential function, we have 2>e^(1/2) which is equivalent to 2>1/(e^2) (by applying power rules), that is true right?