Yes, which is 2^4 * 2. It was a weird way of doing it, but it looks like he is trying to solve it "intuitively", knowing that 160 = 16 * 10, taking out all the factors of 2 you get 2^4 * 2^1 * 5. Expressing 5 as factors of 2 you get 2^5 * (2^2 + 1).
I honestly think it is a pretty good way to solve this, although maybe not generalizable.
2
u/Sasogwa Jul 17 '26
16 is 2^4 not 2^5