How could I solve this problem?

Find the first digit of $2^{4242}$ without using a calculator.

I know how to find the last digit with modular arithmetic, but I can't use that here.

  • $\begingroup$ I simply edited the typo in the title. I hope you don't mind! $\endgroup$ – Namaste Nov 15 '12 at 14:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you have a table of logarithms, you can evaluate $4242 \log(2)$ with sufficient accuracy to bound its fractionnal part between the logarithm of two consecutive numbers between $1$ and $10$ ($\log(d) \le \{4242 \log(2)\} < \log(d+1)$ yields that the first digit of $2^{4242}$ is $d$). $\endgroup$ – Joel Cohen Nov 15 '12 at 14:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Giving a reliable mathematical answer either requires access to some information like the value of $\log(2)$ in at least $4$ decimal places, or quite a bit of computation (you could compute that value by hand). Could this be a trick question? The first digit is the one on the left of the expression, and it is a $2$. $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Nov 15 '12 at 15:04
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcvanLeeuwen, the answer is 9. I ask because I want to know about first digits of exponentiated numbers. $\endgroup$ – sperners lemma Nov 15 '12 at 15:05

This is probably not the answer you are looking for, and wil probably only be appreciated by people of my age ...

I can still remember from school days that $\log_{10} 2 = 0,30102999$ (I always thought it was noteworthy that it is so close to $0.30103$) - people who went to school in the 1950's can probably recall using logs to base 10 for lots of tedious calculations.

You can then do the multiplication by 4242 without a calculator, and get the fractional part ($=x$, say, but you are likely to need a calculator to find out the first digit of $10^x$, unless you have also memorised $\log 2, \log3, \dots, \log 9$ (I can't!)


With a bit more digging in the recesses of my memory, I can just recall that $\log 3$ is something like $0.477$, so $\log 9 = 2 \log 3 = 0.954$, so that should do it ...

  • $\begingroup$ Oops - I was finding the number of digits - I will correct ... $\endgroup$ – Old John Nov 15 '12 at 15:02
  • $\begingroup$ It would be enough to know $\log 3$ accurately as $\log 9 = 2 \log 3$. Unfortunately, the best I know $\log 3$ is a little less than 0.5, not good enough for this purpose. I suppose you could do a bit of a Taylor series starting from $\log \sqrt 10=0.5$ $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Nov 15 '12 at 15:08

If you have memorized that $\log_{10}2\approx 0.30103$ you can multiply by $4242$ and take the fractional part as $0.9692$ which looks like it should be greater than $\log_{10}9$ (and it is, but it is closer than I would have thought, it is $\approx 0.9542$). I don't know how to do it without log tables.

  • $\begingroup$ To get $0.9692$ you needed more digits than present in $0.30103$. But having cheated with a calculator, I can confirm that the first digit is $9$ (it starts $93162601\ldots$). $\endgroup$ – Marc van Leeuwen Nov 15 '12 at 15:11
  • $\begingroup$ @MarcvanLeeuwen: True, but I only need that it is greater than 0.9542. You are right that these aren't enough digits to know that-the fractional part of $4242*0.301025=0.94805\lt \log 9$. But 0.30103 is three digits better than shown. $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Nov 15 '12 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ Instead of a new one here +2 for two ones here. $\endgroup$ – mrs Nov 15 '12 at 16:20

Presenting an alternate method (no logs, but needs the knowledge that doubling time is ~ $70$/rate)

Starting with

$$2^{10}=1024$$ which is $$1000 \times 1.024$$ or a 2.4% increase.

Then, $$70/2.4 \approx 29$$ implies that $$2^{290}\sim 2 \times 10^k$$ for some k.

Then, $$2^{4242} = {2^{290}}^{14} \times 2^{182}$$

So, it would suffice to calculate $$2^{16} \approx 1.6 \times 10^l$$ and to get $2^{182}$, first note that $1.024^{29} \approx 2$ so, $1.024^{18} \approx 1.5$ (pure hand waving, but sounds logical) So, from that $$2^{182} \approx 6 \times 10^m$$ and thus we can get the fist digit to be close to $1.6 \times 6 > 9$

  • $\begingroup$ Instead of tildes, which don't show up in the $\LaTeX$, you can use \sim to get $\sim$ $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Nov 15 '12 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Ross, my TeX hasn't been working I have posted about that in meta before. So, I can't really see what I am typing. $\endgroup$ – picakhu Nov 15 '12 at 18:48
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, the statement of doubling time being 70/rate comes from $\ln 2 \approx 0.7$ so you are just hiding the logs. It is also not clear that the accuracy is enough to be sure it is $9$ $\endgroup$ – Ross Millikan Nov 15 '12 at 18:49
  • $\begingroup$ @Ross, I agree with you. But that is more "common knowledge" than knowing $\log 2 = 0.69...$ $\endgroup$ – picakhu Nov 15 '12 at 18:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.