Can Logarithms Simplify Exponential Equations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PrudensOptimus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithms
PrudensOptimus
Messages
641
Reaction score
0
IS there a way to find x if given:

3^x - 3^(x-1) = 1000


I tried to take log [3^x - 3^(x-1)]/log[3] = log1000/log3

but then, x-x-1 = ...
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
well, I've never done logarithms really, but I figured out how to do this


to break it down it goes like this

(3*3*3*3...*3*3) - (3*3*3*3..*3) = 1000

so therefore 1 less 3 is multiplied in the second part...heres a simple example so you can see the pattern

(5*5*5*5) - (5*5*5) = (5*5*5)*(5-1)

therefore we can say in general that this means

N^m - N^(m-1) = (N^(m-1))*(N-1)

now instead of the left side of the equation above, we use the right side, and solve for x

(3^(x-1))*(3-1) = 1000
3^(x-1) = 1000/(3-1)
3^(x-1) = 500
log (3^(x-1)) = log (500)
(x-1)(log 3) = log (500)
x-1 = log (500)/log (3)
x = [log (500)/log (3)] + 1

and voila, you have x...

another way of looking at this is that since you are subtracting something with one less *3, then 3^x : 3^(x-1) is 3:1. 3-1=2, so 2:1000. This means that 3:1500 and 1:500. Therefore 3^x = 1500 and x^(x-1) = 500

I hope this helps
 
You can use the properties of exponents to factor your inital expression.

3^x - 3^{(x-1)}=1000
3^x -3^x 3^{-1}=1000
3^x(1 - 3^{-1})=1000
3^x= 1500
ln(3^x)= ln 1500
x ln 3= ln 1500
x = \frac {ln 1500} {ln 3}

I'll leave it to the reader to show that the 2 results are the same.
 
another solution:
instead of factoring 3^x, factor out 3^x-1
(3^x)-{3(x-1)}=1000
{3^(x-1)}[3-1]=1000
{3^(x-1)}2=1000
{3^(x-1)}=500
log{3^(x-1)}=log(500)
(x-1)log3=log500
x=[(log500)/(log3)]+1
 
Warr said:
well, I've never done logarithms really, but I figured out how to do this


to break it down it goes like this

(3*3*3*3...*3*3) - (3*3*3*3..*3) = 1000

so therefore 1 less 3 is multiplied in the second part...heres a simple example so you can see the pattern

(5*5*5*5) - (5*5*5) = (5*5*5)*(5-1)

therefore we can say in general that this means

N^m - N^(m-1) = (N^(m-1))*(N-1)

now instead of the left side of the equation above, we use the right side, and solve for x

(3^(x-1))*(3-1) = 1000
3^(x-1) = 1000/(3-1)
3^(x-1) = 500
log (3^(x-1)) = log (500)
(x-1)(log 3) = log (500)
x-1 = log (500)/log (3)
x = [log (500)/log (3)] + 1

and voila, you have x...

another way of looking at this is that since you are subtracting something with one less *3, then 3^x : 3^(x-1) is 3:1. 3-1=2, so 2:1000. This means that 3:1500 and 1:500. Therefore 3^x = 1500 and x^(x-1) = 500

I hope this helps
How can I understand the logarithms requirements in flowcharts? Easily please, I am mad about a situation with a proffesor.
 
evagriselda said:
How can I understand the logarithms requirements in flowcharts? Easily please, I am mad about a situation with a proffesor.
u mean something like

log (a*b) = log a + log b?

they are called Log Rules or Log Properties.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top