Can You Solve 2^x = x^5 with Just a Basic Calculator?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EternityMech
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equation 2^x = x^5, exploring methods for solving it, the level of mathematics required, and the nature of its solutions. Participants consider both algebraic and numerical approaches, as well as the implications of using the Lambert W function.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using the Lambert W function to solve the equation, noting that an exact solution may not be possible.
  • Others propose taking the logarithm of both sides, leading to the equation x = 5 ln(x), questioning whether this simplifies the problem.
  • There is a suggestion that the equation can be manipulated into a form suitable for the Lambert W function, specifically x e^{-ax/5} = 1.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the number of real solutions, with one suggesting there could be two based on calculus insights.
  • Graphical methods are recommended as a way to visualize the solutions, with one participant emphasizing the value of graphical representation.
  • A numerical approach using fixed point iteration is described, suggesting that it can be performed with a basic scientific calculator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is no simple algebraic solution to the equation and that numerical methods or graphical solutions may be necessary. However, there is no consensus on the exact number of solutions, with differing opinions on the use of calculus and the Lambert W function.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the complexity of transcendental equations and the limitations of algebraic methods in solving them. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with advanced mathematical concepts, such as the Lambert W function.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for individuals interested in solving complex equations, exploring numerical methods, or understanding the implications of transcendental equations in mathematics.

EternityMech
Messages
95
Reaction score
0
anyway to solve this? if so what level of math is needed?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org


what if you logged both sides using log with 2 power base?

you get x = 5 lnx

is that easier to solve?
 


EternityMech said:
anyway to solve this? if so what level of math is needed?

As micromass said, you can't really solve that type of equation algebraically. In some simple case you might just "spot" a solution by inspection (eg 2^x = x^2; x=2 or x=4).

You can solve the equation numerically or manipulate the Lambert-W function into a solution.

The Lambert-W function W(x) is defined as the solution (w) to we^w = x.

BTW. How many real solutions are you expecting to get for that equation?
 


EternityMech said:
what if you logged both sides using log with 2 power base?

you get x = 5 lnx

is that easier to solve?

No, there's still no algebraic solution.

You're best to write it as e^{ax} = x^5 and then take the fifth root of each side. (a = sqrt(2) btw).

x e^{-ax/5} = 1

From here you can fairly easily manipulate it into Lambert's equation.
 


uart said:
BTW. How many real solutions are you expecting to get for that equation?

all of them...?
 


EternityMech said:
all of them...?

Can you deduce how many there are?
 


Mentallic said:
Can you deduce how many there are?

2 if you use calculus it seems atleast according to wolfram. been looking into the lambert w function seems waay out of my league for now. seems there are no simple answer with this. but it sure looks simple.
 


Solve it graphically! A picture is worth a thousand words.
 
  • #10


EternityMech said:
2 if you use calculus it seems atleast according to wolfram. been looking into the lambert w function seems waay out of my league for now. seems there are no simple answer with this. but it sure looks simple.

x=\cos(x) might also look simple, but it too cannot be solved algebraically. They're called transcendental equations.
 
  • #11


EternityMech said:
2 if you use calculus it seems atleast according to wolfram. been looking into the lambert w function seems waay out of my league for now. seems there are no simple answer with this. but it sure looks simple.
Yes that is correct, there are two real solutions. For some fairly small positive value of "x", x^5 will exceed 2^x, but it is important to understand that for large "x" that 2^x will eventually exceed x^5 (or any power of x for that matter).

BTW. From my previous post x e^{-ax/5} = 1, so (-ax/5) e^{-ax/5} = -a/5. Can you see that this is exactly in the form of Lambert's equation. Of course this is only of use to you if you have software or tables or whatever that solves Lambert's equation.
 
Last edited:
  • #12


There is a simple numerical solution you can do on just a basic scientific calculator, and it's particularly easy if it's got an "ans" button and can automatically repeat the previous calculation (many do this by just repeatedly pressing "=" for example).

Rearrange the equation to x = (2^x)^{0.2} and start with an initial "guess" of say x=2. You'll find that repeated iterations of this equation converge to the first solution fairly quickly. This is called "fixed point iteration" btw.

For the second solution you can rearrange it into x = \log(x^5)/\log(2), with some larger initial guess for "x" this should converge fairly quickly to the second solution.

For fixed point iteration you just keep repeating the calculation, each time using the newest value of "x" in the right hand side of the equation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K