Can I Use Logarithms to Solve Exponential Equations?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin Licer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithms
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of logarithms to solve exponential equations, exploring whether taking the logarithm of both sides is a valid approach. Participants consider the implications of logarithmic properties and alternative methods for solving such equations.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of taking the logarithm of both sides of an exponential equation.
  • Another participant asserts that the logarithm of a sum cannot be simplified into the sum of the logarithms of individual terms, which complicates the use of logarithms in this context.
  • Some participants agree that while taking the logarithm is a common approach, it may not be useful due to the nature of the equation being discussed.
  • A later reply suggests that converting the equation into a polynomial form may be a more effective method for finding solutions, highlighting the importance of exponentiation rules.
  • Participants discuss the possibility of finding integer solutions through trial and error and mention the Rational Root Theorem as a potential aid.
  • There is mention of polynomial long division and synthetic division as methods to further analyze the polynomial formed from the exponential equation.
  • One participant concludes that while logarithms can be used in general cases, the specific problem at hand may require simpler methods for solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the utility of logarithms for solving the given exponential equation. While some agree that logarithms are not helpful due to the properties of sums, others propose alternative methods without reaching a consensus on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations regarding the simplification of logarithmic expressions and the specific conditions under which the discussed methods apply. The discussion does not resolve the complexities involved in solving the equation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and educators in mathematics, particularly those exploring methods for solving exponential equations and the properties of logarithms.

Kevin Licer
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
So, recently I have been learning about logarithms and how to solve exponential equations with the help of logarithms, but I am curious if I can take the log of both sides of an equation like this in order to solve it?
newlogarithmquestion.png

If not, then could someone explain why? Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You cannot, the logarithm of a sum is not equal to the sum of the logarithms of the individual terms.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kevin Licer
So, taking the log of both sides of this equation would be more like this?
logs.png
And would it be useful in this case?
 
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kevin Licer
Kevin Licer said:
So, taking the log of both sides of this equation would be more like this?
View attachment 89007And would it be useful in this case?

Yes, that would be the correct way to take the log of both sides, but since you can't do anything with that log on the left because of all the summed terms in its argument, you similarly are stuck at solving this problem. It's a very difficult one to solve that's outside of the scope of what you're doing. You can get lucky and find an easy interger solution though (although this isn't the only solution and you won't be finding the others).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kevin Licer
Kevin Licer said:
So, taking the log of both sides of this equation would be more like this?
View attachment 89007And would it be useful in this case?

Orodruin said:
Yes.
Orodruin's answer is a response to the first question, I'm pretty sure. As for the second question, would it be useful?
No, for the reason already given, that the log of a sum can't be simplified further.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Kevin Licer
Yes, I see now, I thought I could solve the equation by taking the log of both sides, but seeing as that is a mistake I'll try and work it out another way. Thanks!
 
The most common way of solving a problem like this in an elementary fashion is to try to get it into the form of a polynomial equation that can be easily solved. Of course, the question has to be set specifically so that it's "easy" to solve that way, and in this case, it is.

You need to be familiar with the rules of exponentiation. These are what you need: ##a^{b+c} = a^b \cdot a^c## and ##a^{bc} = (a^b)^c##

Using those rules, you can convert your equation into a sextic (power-6) equation in terms of a new variable ##y##, where ##y = 2^x##. This equation (thankfully) has at least one nice integer solution, which you can quickly find by trial and error (aided by the Rational Root Theorem, http://www.purplemath.com/modules/rtnlroot.htm).

At this point you need to find the full solution set, or at least show there are no other real, positive solutions (since an exponential is strictly positive). You can do this by either polynomial long division or the much simpler synthetic division (http://www.purplemath.com/modules/synthdiv.htm) by the linear factor you uncovered in the last step to get a quintic (power-5) polynomial. It's "tough" to solve or even sketch this curve, but fortunately, there is a little trick called the Decartes' Rule of Signs (http://www.purplemath.com/modules/drofsign.htm) that allows you to very quickly conclude that the quintic has no positive real roots. Hence the single value for ##y## you've already found is the only one that is valid.

Finally, you find ##x## by solving ##2^x = y## for ##x##, which I assume you know to do. In the general case you can do so by taking logs of both sides, but here all that's required is simple inspection (this should give you a big hint about how "nice" the solution is).

(Edited for more details, since I was rushing to work in the morning and was unable to complete the post).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K