Which of the numbers $99^{100}$ & $100^{99}$ is the larger? Solve without using logarithms.
8 Answers
Note that $$\begin{align} 99^{100} > 100^{99} &\iff 99 \cdot 99^{99} > 100^{99} \\ &\iff 99 > (100/99)^{99} \\ &\iff 99 > \left( 1 + \frac{1}{99}\right)^{99} \end{align}$$
Since $(1 + \frac{1}{n})^n < 3$ for all integers $n$, the above inequalities are all true. Thus, $99^{100} > 100^{99}$. In general, you should expect that $x^y > y^x$, whenever $y > x$.

- 74,748

- 13,153
-
3
-
8Mr. Man, sir, can you please cite where $(1 + \frac{1}{n})^n < 3$ comes from, or prove it, or something? I'm Rusty on this sort of thing. – Ed Staub Jan 29 '12 at 02:38
-
7@EdStaub: The inequality comes from the calculation of e. e=2.7(ish), and is defined as the limit of that equasion, as n= infinity. – PearsonArtPhoto Jan 29 '12 at 02:54
-
4@EdStaub: Expanding $(1 + \frac{1}{n})^n$ using the binomial theorem, it is enough to show $\frac{1}{2!} + \frac{1}{3!} + \dots + \frac{1}{n!} < 1$. But this follows immediately since $n! \geq 2^{n-1}$ for positive integers $n$ (which you can prove by induction), and hence $$\sum_{k =2}^n \frac{1}{k!} \leq \sum_{k=2}^n \frac{1}{2^{n-1}} < 1$. Adding $2$ to both sides gives the result. There are many places where you can read more (by googling "limit definition of e"), say for example, here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=176076 – JavaMan Jan 29 '12 at 03:25
-
$\lim_{x \rightarrow 0} e^x-1 = x$. From there, you can get the inequality that $\lim_{x \rightarrow \infty}\left(1 + \frac{1}{x} \right)^{x} =e$ and since it is monotonically increasing function inside the limit, you have that it is true for $x$. – Jalaj Jan 29 '12 at 04:01
-
1
-
Sorry, I meant $\lim_{x \rightarrow 0}\frac{e^x-1}{x}=1$. A sheer example of negligence on my part. – Jalaj Jan 29 '12 at 04:11
-
1@ratchet freak: Assuming "it" is $x^y > y^x$ for $y > x$, that would be true for $x \ge e$, not for $x > 2$. – Robert Israel Jan 29 '12 at 08:55
-
@RobertIsrael if you say $x,y \in \mathbb{N}$ then $x>2$ suffices – ratchet freak Jan 29 '12 at 13:43
-
7@Pearsonartphoto: no it doesn't. What you get from the calculation of $e=2.71828\dots$ is that there is an $N$ so that for $x>N$, $\left(1+\frac1x\right)^x<3$. However, what happens for $x\le N$? – robjohn Jan 29 '12 at 22:39
-
@robjohn: $\left(1+\frac1x\right)^x$ is an increasing function of $x$ so you can take $N=0$ – Henry Feb 07 '12 at 13:46
-
1@Henry: my comment was to point out that the fact that $\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\left(1+\frac1n\right)^n=e<3$ does not give a clue as to $\max\limits_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left(1+\frac1n\right)^n$. – robjohn Feb 07 '12 at 14:34
$99^{100} - 100^{99}$ is:
3560323412732295049306160265725173861897
1207663892369140595737269931704475072474
8187196543510026950400661569100652843274
7182356968017994158571053544917075742738
9035006098270837114978219916760849490001
Since this number is positive, $99^{100}$ is the bigger number.

- 1,003
-
34Nice reminder that the world has changed since I first did mathematics. – André Nicolas Jan 29 '12 at 01:57
-
15
-
1@Matt...uh, why would it? The first term can be calculated with 7 integer multiplications and the second can be done in 8. – cardinal Jan 29 '12 at 02:16
-
2@cardinal Maybe I misinterpreted what AndréNicolas said, but I meant my comment more as a joke than anything; although this method is certainly not what would be expected and doesn't give any insight into which is bigger, it's still 'correct' and doesn't use logarithms. – Matt Jan 29 '12 at 02:19
-
@Matt: I see. I probably misinterpreted your comment then, which I thought might be an ironic one implying logarithms were almost certainly used in the calculation. Sorry about that. Cheers. – cardinal Jan 29 '12 at 02:22
-
21
-
16
-
9@Myself - Yep, http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=999999%5E1000000+%3E+1000000%5E999999. Might have to give it a few seconds ;) – DMan Jan 29 '12 at 04:18
-
6"...Since this number is positive...": as Orwell could have said, many numbers are positive but some are more positive than others... – Georges Elencwajg Jan 29 '12 at 15:05
A purely math solution: Using AM-GM inequality:
$$(x+1)^x\times \frac{x}{2} \times \frac{x}{2} < \left(\frac{x(x+1)+x}{x+2}\right)^{x+2}=x^{x+2}.$$
Therefore
$$(x+1)^x < 4x^x$$
and easily we see that $(x+1)^x< x^{x+1}$ for any $x\ge 4$.

- 16,007

- 291
-
11
-
2In this case, it's no computation. In general, it's just personal sense.
Since the question is pretty easy with calculus, I expected that an "elementary" solution (secondary-school) is a best fit.
– hiro Jan 29 '12 at 13:48 -
1@GeorgesElencwajg I don't see how using a hand calculator, as say I did in my answer, doesn't come as something check-able. Or for that matter if we calculate $99^{100}$ by multiplying 99s out on paper, it only involves 100 multiplications. Sure, that's several sheets of paper and probably takes a few hours to do, but we could all do that before we die if we had the persistance and desire to do so. – Doug Spoonwood Jan 29 '12 at 17:24
-
3@Doug: But why would we want to do such a thing, since (a) this is most boring, (b) using our brain a few seconds would solve the question and would furthermore suggest easy generalizations? – Did Jan 29 '12 at 17:40
-
@Doug: As mentioned in a comment hidden under the fold of another answer, the explicit calculation can be done in under ten multiplications for each term. So, if you're masochistic but still not that masochistic... :) – cardinal Jan 29 '12 at 17:51
-
@DidierPiau If we didn't trust our calculating machines, and we wanted to know how much greater one of the numbers is than the other, doing such a calculation by hand might make sense. – Doug Spoonwood Jan 30 '12 at 02:29
-
1@Doug: If I didn't trust my calculating machines, and I wanted to know how much greater one of the numbers is than the other, I would much prefer to know that $(x+1)^x=\varrho(x)x^x$, where the function $x\mapsto \varrho(x)$ is increasing on $x\geqslant1$ from $\varrho(1)=2$ to $\varrho(+\infty)=\mathrm e$. The proof is easier to check and the result is more informative. – Did Jan 30 '12 at 06:13
-
@DidierPiau Sorry, I don't follow. How does that method tell us how much different the numbers are? – Doug Spoonwood Jan 30 '12 at 13:22
-
1@Doug: The ratio between $(x+1)^x$ and $x^{x+1}$ is $\varrho(x)/x$, hence, between $2/x$ and $\mathrm e/x$ for every $x\geqslant1$, and even between $9/(4x)$ and $\mathrm e/x$ for every $x\geqslant2$. For example, this proves that the ratio $100^{99}/99^{100}$ is between $0.02272727$ and $0.02745739$ without knowing the values of $100^{99}$ and $99^{100}$. This even suggests that this ratio is much closer to the latter value than to the former (to wit, the actual ratio is $0.02731999$). – Did Jan 30 '12 at 16:19
-
@ArcticChar What is the point of your very minor editions on a 9 y.o. post ? – zwim Nov 26 '21 at 23:21
$x^{x+1}=x x^x$ while for large $x$, $(x+1)^x\sim e x^x$. Since $99>e$, I would say that $99^{100}>100^{99}$.
More Detail:
To show that $(x+1)^x=\left(1+\frac1x\right)^xx^x<ex^x$, without just saying so and without using logarithms, consider the binomial expansion $$ \left(1+\frac1x\right)^x=1+1+\frac12\frac{x-1}{x}+\frac16\frac{(x-1)(x-2)}{x^2}+\frac{1}{24}\frac{(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)}{x^3}+\dots $$ and note that, at least for $x\in\mathbb{N}$, each term is monotonically increasing. Thus, $\left(1+\frac1x\right)^x$ monotonically increases to $e=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty\frac{1}{k!}$.

- 345,667
-
1Is your approximation here necessarily an over or under approximation? If not, then how do you have anything more than a good guess? – Doug Spoonwood Jan 29 '12 at 03:48
-
2$$\frac{(x+1)^x}{x^x}=\left(1+\frac{1}{x}\right)^x<e<99$$ for all $x>0$. – Jonas Meyer Jan 29 '12 at 03:59
-
1@Doug: At least for natural $x$, we can show monotonicity simply with the binomial theorem. I have added the details. – robjohn Jan 29 '12 at 14:37
-
1@robjohn I've now upvoted your answer, since the details can help here, while the older version didn't help much. – Doug Spoonwood Jan 29 '12 at 16:44
Proof that $x^y > y^x$ for all $y > x > e$: Raising both sides to the ${1 \over xy}$ power, this is equivalent to $x^{1 \over x} > y^{1 \over y}$. The derivative of $x^{1 \over x}$ with respect to $x$ is ${\displaystyle {1 - \ln(x) \over x^2} x^{1 \over x}}$, which is negative whenever $\ln(x) > 1$ i.e. when $x > e$. Thus $x^{1 \over x}$ is a decreasing function of $x$ for $x > e$.
Yeah I know, I used logarithms. But someone needed to say this ;)

- 44,950
I cheat and use a basic fact about $e$.
$${99^{100}\over 100^{99}} = 99\left({99\over 100}\right)^{99}\approx {99\over e} > 1.$$

- 49,383
-
Nice cheat, what is the general formula for this fact about $e$ please? Thanks. – NoChance Jan 29 '12 at 15:09
-
1
-
2@ncmathsadist Your comment has a small typo. Surely, you meant to write either $(1 + \lambda/n)^n \sim e^{\lambda}$ or $(1 + 1/n)^n \sim e$. – Srivatsan Jan 29 '12 at 17:27
-
-
6Somebody should probably mention that such asymptotics, per se, can give NO information about the $n$th term of a sequence, even for $n=99$, hence the (true) basic fact used here CANNOT prove the desired inequality. – Did Jan 29 '12 at 19:19
-
That'd be true, but I think the approximation is illuminating. It is not terribly hard to establish that for any $n$, $2\le (1 + 1/n) \le 3$. Massage this a bit and it will make the argument airtight. – ncmathsadist Jan 29 '12 at 20:33
-
3Starting from $2\le1+1/n\le3$, I doubt one can go far. And if you wish to use $(1+1/n)^n\le3$ for every $n$, then mention it... – Did Jan 30 '12 at 16:29
$100^{99}$=$(10*10)^{99}$=$(10^{99})(10^{99})$=$10^{198}$ exactly.
$99^{100}$=$(9*11)^{100}$=$(9^{100})(11^{100})$ exactly. My "hand" calculator approximates $9^{100}$ as about $(2.656)(10^{95})$.
11=(2)(2)(2.75).
$2^{100}$ equals about (1.267)($10^{30}$), $2.75^{100}$ equals about (8.575)($10^{43}$). Dropping the coefficients here we can thus approximate ($11^{100}$) by a lower bound of ($10^{30}$)($10^{30}$)($10^{43}$)=$10^{103}$.
Keeping the coefficients on the approximation of $9^{100}$ we have a lower bound for $99^{100}$ as $(2.656)((10^{95}$)($10^{103}$))=(2.656)($10^{198}$) which comes as greater than $10^{198}$.
So, $99^{100}$>$100^{99}$.
Note that if we kept the coefficients in here, we would also have more of an idea as to how much greater $99^{100}$ is than $100^{99}$. Some of the other answers do this, some don't. This doesn't necessarily make this answer better though, since such information might come as extraneous to the problem.

- 11,211
From experimenting with small numbers:
scala> (0 to 5).map (x=> (math.pow (x, x+1) - math.pow (x+1, x))).mkString ("; ")
res18: String = -1.0; -1.0; -1.0; 17.0; 399.0; 7849.0
scala> (0 to 5).map (x=> (math.pow (x, x+1), math.pow (x+1, x))).mkString ("; ")
res19: String = (0.0,1.0); (1.0,2.0); (8.0,9.0); (81.0,64.0); (1024.0,625.0); (15625.0,7776.0)
you can conclude, that the first one is growing faster than the second. Of course this is only an indication.

- 131
-
Do you have computer code in this answer? I simply don't know how to interpret "scala> (0 to 5).map" and the like. – Doug Spoonwood Jan 30 '12 at 04:40
-
@DougSpoonwood: Yes, Scala code. (0 to 5) creates a Range, a collection of the numbers (0, 1, ..., 5). The
map (x =>
takes each of them, and puts them, namedx
, into a function, math.pow (x, x+1) - ... so for the first element it is math.pow (0, 0+1) or 0^(1), then 1^2, 2^3 and so on minus 1^0, then 2^1, 3^2 and so on. mkString is only used for formatting the output a bit. (3^4-4^2) = 81.0-64.0 = 16 – user unknown Jan 30 '12 at 14:50
99**100 > 100*99 == True
– orlp Jan 29 '12 at 12:02False
:P) – orlp Jan 29 '12 at 13:371 <= x < 9
), so it was interpreting99**100 > 100**99 == True
as one of these. True has an integer comparison value of 1, so this is really99**100 > 10**99 == 1
, which is false.99**100 > 100**99
and(99**100 > 10**99) == True
both return True as you'd expect. – DSM Jan 29 '12 at 15:0510 > 1 == True
and10 > 2 == True
. The difference in returned values allowed me to deduce what must be happening. There must be some good reason they decided to allow this in the language specification, but it still strikes me as odd and, as in this case, error-prone. – cardinal Jan 29 '12 at 15:22if condition == True:
is more verbose thanif condition:
for no good reason. – Free Monica Cellio Jan 29 '12 at 17:5399**100 > 100**99 #=> true
– Mas Adit Jan 30 '12 at 12:13