Mathematics desk
< March 30	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	April 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 31[edit]

Strange result in the quotient of a number and the logarithm of it's powers?[edit]

Define f(N, X) = N / log(N^X). Why is it that f(2, X) = f(4, X) for any given X, always? This seems like a rather unusual result. Is there a simple explanation for it?Earl of Arundel (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4 / (log 4^X) = 4 / (log 2^(2X)) = 4 / (2 log 2^X) = 2 / (log 2^X). Double sharp (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks, but in terms of the graph produced when plotting out possible values, it just seems strange that both 2 and 4 have the same intersection point, doesn't it? Earl of Arundel (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you hold X constant and take the partial derivative with respect to N, you get (log N - 1) / (X log^2 N). This equals zero when log N = 1, or N = e, so you have a turning point there. Since your function is "nice" in the sense that it is continuous as N changes in the region around e, it is then not surprising that you get the same values for a value of N below e and a value of N above e. {2, 4} just happens to be the only such pair both of whose members are integers. Double sharp (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but since 2 and 4 are not equidistant from e, isn't it kind of odd that the inflection would result in a crossing at the same point for both of those values? I don't know, maybe I'm just overthinking this! Anyway, thanks for the insight. Earl of Arundel (talk) 04:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your function is equal to (N / log N) / X. The point is that 2 / log 2=4 / log 4.Burzuchius (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very simple explanation for this common intersection just occurred to me: observing that N^K = NK only when N = K = 2 or N = 4, K = 1/2 (excluding the trivial case where K = 1, of course), since log(N^K) = log(N) * K then obviously (2 / (log(2) * 1)) = (4 / (log(2) * 2). Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For any k > 0 take n = exp( log(k) / ( k - 1 )) and it's a solution to n^k = nk. --‎Joel B. Lewis 11:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! Thanks, Joel. Earl of Arundel (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just found a neat set of equivalences there: n = exp(log(k)/(k-1)) = (((k^k)^(1/(k-1)))/k) = ((1/k)^(-(1/(k-1)))) = k^(1/(k-1)). Earl of Arundel (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Earl of Arundel, Burzuchius, and Joel B. Lewis: Hmm.

@Double sharp: hi. Remember me? We met on Einsteinium. —usernamekiran[talk] 22:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Existence of a Soltuion in Tower of Hanoi[edit]

Is that true that the problem of Tower of Hanoi has a solution for any "legal" starting position: that is, as long the disks are ordered in increasing order in each of the 3 towers, there is a solution? עברית (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article titled Tower of Hanoi has extensive discussion of the solution. --Jayron 32 11:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: you can transform any legal position into any other legal position. Double sharp (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One can solve the puzzle from any initial position without violating rules of move, not just from "legal". --CiaPan (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't altogether obvious except after one stares into space for a while and then declares it obvious :) Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dmcq: I never said it's obvious. :) --CiaPan (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a legal move is one that doesn't make the position any more illegal? —Tamfang (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dare to define 'more illegal' ;) Anyway, a move is legal if it obeys rules: only one disk is moved at a time and that disk lands either on a greater disk or on an empty stack. --CiaPan (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! עברית (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone fix an error?[edit]

I took a class in college where we did what is done in 99 Bottles of Beer#References in computer science. There's no close parenthesis and I'm pretty sure one is needed, but I want to keep what was used in the first place.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are you seeing a parenthesis missing? There's only one pair of parentheses in the section you cited, and both are present. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the section heading has changed, but I still only see a left parenthesis. Maybe this is one for the WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It changed from "References in science" to "References in computer science" in [1] and that's what I see. If you refer to

O(\log N)

then I see an image displaying "O(log N)" for both the first anmd third setting of Math at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. Have you enabled the second setting "LaTeX source (for text browsers)"? There I see "$ O(\log N) $" Some browsers with LaTex features may try to render it as a formula. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do that. I don't use it enough.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]