Maths - How Does This Figure?

[Lynn_M]

It's impossible writing this down using a keyboard, so imagine this: A large figure 2 with a small figure 4 in its top right hand corner. I can tell you now that the answer is 16, but I can't figure out how it's done. If the numbers were reversed, it would make sense (4 squared is 16)

Have we got a maths genius out there who can explain this?

[Fitzer]

Do you mean 2 to the power 4, if so it just means the 2 is multiplied by itself 4 times (2x2x2x2 = 16)

[Peter Pedant]

no genius me

you get two ( the base ) and multiply it together by the small number ( index power or exponent )

so here is it 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 whcih is 16

lots here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation

[Old_Geezer]

As folk have pointed out:

4 * 4 = 16 sure but 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 16 also.

Multiply 2 lots of 4 or 4 lots of 2.

[Lynn_M]

Ah, so it's 2x2=4; then 2x the answer (4) is 8; then 2x THAT answer (8) is 16!

Bingo, got it! Thanks everyone

[Hopkirk]

I understand it all, except Old Geezer's answer.

[New Judge]

OG's answer suggests that Lynn could be describing 2 to the power of four or four to the power of two (both of which equal 16).

I think from the description in the question ("A large figure 2 with a small figure 4 in its top right hand corner.") that Lynn is asking about 2 to the power of 4.

[dustypuss]

I think old geezer is broken down like tis .2*2=4. 4*4=8. 8*8=16

[Old_Geezer]

I've been broken down for years.
Unsure like that though.

[jim360]

8*8 = 16? Hmm.

[New Judge]

The only difficulty I see with your explanation, dusty, is that whilst 2*2 most certainly equals 4, 4*4 does not equal 8 and 8*8 does not equal 16.

[Old_Geezer]

Base 58 Jim

[ToraToraTora]

no genius necessary, they did this in ingant school in my day. Did they not do indecis in in your school? you've heard of squared, cubed this is the next level. 2 to the power 4, written 2**4 in IT speak.

[ichkeria]

"4 * 4 = 16 sure but 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 = 16 also.

Multiply 2 lots of 4 or 4 lots of 2.!

Tho it isn't quite that is it? That suggests that x^y will always equal y^x, which of course is not true.

[Old_Geezer]

The implication is yours rather than my posts.

[Hopkirk]

My brain hurts

[Prudie]

You gotta love this site - Fitzer gave a correct and complete answer over 12 hours ago.

[Hopkirk]

I'm sure Lynn doesn't mind

[ToraToraTora]

so we are not allowed to comment further, prudie has spoken, right oh!

[Prudie]

OMG!!
I repeat - you gotta love this site - despite it being full of people who like to twist comments so they can make hay out of it.

[-Talbot-]

Actually I have just checked the rules and on this occasion, ttt is wrong.
There is no rule that when Prudie speaks we are not allowed to comment further.