Finding an eksponential function given 2 points

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr-NiKoN
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Points
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around finding exponential functions given specific data points, as well as exploring related empirical functions that utilize logarithmic transformations. Participants engage in mathematical reasoning to derive parameters for these functions based on provided coordinates.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning, Technical explanation, Homework-related, Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a method to find an exponential function through two points, raising questions about the correctness of their calculations.
  • Another participant points out a potential error in the exponent calculation, suggesting a correction to the approach.
  • Further calculations lead to confusion regarding the values of parameters 'a' and 'c', with one participant questioning whether these should be less than 1.
  • Participants discuss the accuracy of empirical functions derived from logarithmic transformations, with one expressing dissatisfaction with the precision of their results.
  • A later reply clarifies the correct form of the logarithmic relationship and provides a method for determining the parameters of a power function.
  • There is a discussion about the terminology, with one participant asking about the classification of the function form they are using.
  • Participants engage in clarifying misunderstandings about logarithmic properties and the derivation of parameters.
  • One participant expresses satisfaction upon understanding the derivation of the parameter 'r' and confirms their approach aligns with others' methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the methods for finding exponential and power functions, but there are disagreements regarding specific calculations and interpretations of logarithmic properties. The discussion remains unresolved on some points, particularly around the accuracy of empirical functions.

Contextual Notes

Some calculations rely on approximations, and there are unresolved issues regarding the accuracy of derived parameters. Participants express uncertainty about the implications of certain values being greater or less than 1.

Dr-NiKoN
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Given the two points: (270, 59) and (420, 135) I want to find an exponential function that goes trough these two points.
So I have:
[itex]ca^{260} = 50[/itex] and [itex]ca^{420} = 135[/itex]

I then divide these two functions:

[itex]\frac{ca^{270}}{ca^{420}} = \frac{59}{135}[/itex]

[itex]a^{270-420} = \frac{59}{135}[/itex]

[itex]a = (\frac{59}{135})^{\frac{1}{270-420}}[/itex]

Is this the correct way for finding a and c, thus giving me a eksponential function?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your method is correct, however, your ;ast two steps use 270-420 instead of 260-420. You probably just copied it wrong by accident, no big deal. By the way, it's exponential :)
 
Ok, then I need help.
It's 270 btw.

[itex]a = (\frac{59}{135})^{\frac{1}{270-420}}[/itex]

[itex]a= 1.0055[/itex]

Now finding c:
[itex]ca^{270} = 59[/itex]

[itex]c = \frac{59}{a^{270}} = \frac{59}{1.0055^{270}} = 13.3[/itex]

But:
[itex]f(x) = 13.3 * 1.0055^x[/itex]
Isn't correct.

I'm not sure where I'm going wrong here :(
Shouldn't a or c be less than 1?
 
Last edited:
No, since this is an increasing function, a cannot be less than 1. I don't know why you think a or c must be less than 1.

Using your figures,
13.3(1.0055)^270= 58.5 instead of 59
13.3(1.0055)^420= 133.1 instead of 135.

It looks to me like you are just rounding off too much. I get
a= 1.005533502 and then c= 13.29795470.

Using those values, c a^270= 59.00000000 and c a^420= 135.00000000.
 
Sorry guys, the confusion was due to me using an incorrect number.

Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
I'll use this thread instead of creating a new one. I'm working on creating emphiric functions given various data-sets.

Linear functions and as shown above exponential functions are fine.
Now I'm working with functions that are similar to exponential functions, but using log.
I want a function of the form: [itex]f(x) = c * x^r[/itex]

The data set:
[itex](\log{x_0}, \log{y_0}), (\log{x_1}, \log{y_1}).[/itex]

There might obviously be more points. From these points, we try to draw out a straight line as possible on a graph. Then find the graphs slope(?) graphically with a ruler. ie
[itex]\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta y} = r[/itex]

Now we have:
[itex]c * x_0^r = y_0 \rightarrow c = \frac{y_0}{x_0^r}[/itex]

I've tried this out with various data, but my function is always very inaccurate. It's 100% for the point I use to find 'c', but for any other point the result might be as much as 50% off. I know it's an emphiric function, but I would expect I would be able to get it more accurate.

Is this normal?
 
Whatever have you been doing??
We have:
[tex]y(x)=cx^{r}[/tex]
or, EQUIVALENTLY:
[tex]log(y)=rlog(x)+log(c)[/tex]
You are to interpolate, using initial conditions:
[tex]log(y_{0})=rlog(x_{0})+log(c)[/tex]
[tex]log(y_{1})=rlog(x_{1})+log(c)[/tex]
This yields:
[tex]r=\frac{log(\frac{y_{1}}{y_{0}})}{log(\frac{x_{1}}{x_{0}})}[/tex]
[tex]log(c)=log(y_{1})-rlog(x_{1})=log(\frac{y_{1}}{x_{1}^{r}})[/tex]
Or:
[tex]c=\frac{y_{1}}{x_{1}^{r}}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Ah, that works like a charm.

I'm guessing my error was that I was still treating it as an exponential function, just using log on the values for each point.

What is a function of the form f(x) = ax^r called by the way? Is this also a linear function?
 
It's called a power function.
 
  • #10
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but my book doesn't mention it.

Is this correct?

[itex]\frac{\log(x_0)}{\log(x_1)} = \log(\frac{x_1}{x_0})[/itex]

Because my book says:

[itex]\log(\frac{x_0}{x_1}) = \log(x_0) - \log(x_1)[/itex]
 
Last edited:
  • #11
No it is not!
I can't see that I have done that mistake.

what your book writes, is correct.
 
  • #12
I'm sure what you have written is correct, I'm just having trouble getting from:

[itex]log(y_{1})=rlog(x_{1})+log(c)[/itex]
[itex]log(y_{0})=rlog(x_{0})+log(c)[/itex]

to

[itex]r=\frac{log(\frac{y_{1}}{y_{0}})}{log(\frac{x_{1}} {x_{0}})}[/itex]

Have you done:

[itex]\log(y_0) - r\log(x_0) = \log(y_1) - r\log(x_1)[/itex]

To find r? I don't understand what you mean by interpolating, or what step you did.
 
  • #13
I have subtracted the left-hand SIDES from each other, and equated that to the subtraction of the right-hand sides from each other.
 
  • #14
Note "interpolation" means to fit given data to some type of curve (in this case, we determine what sort of exponential curve fits two given data points)
 
  • #15
[itex]\log(y_0) - r\log(x_0) = \log(y_1) - r\log(x_1)[/itex]

[itex]r\log(x_1) - r\log(x_0) = \log(y_1) - \log(y_0)[/itex]

[itex]r(\log(x_1) - \log(x_0)) = \log(y_1) - \log(y_0)[/itex]

[itex]r * \log(\frac{x_1}{x_0}) = \log(\frac{y_1}{y_0})[/itex]

[itex]r = \frac{\log(\frac{y_1}{y_0})}{\log(\frac{x_1}{x_0})}[/itex]

Yay :)

I was just wondering if this was the same way you did it. It seems so elemental, and I thought you where using other elements of log to get there.
 
  • #16
No, your understanding of logs is clearly as "deep" as my own..:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #17
I highly doubt it :)

thanks a lot!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K