Equation rearrangement to solve for varialbe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bgayn
  • Start date Start date
Bgayn
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
T= ln x/k divided by (x-k)

I need to rearrange this equation to solve for x.

This is not a homework assignment. This equation is for a kinetics study I am conducting.

The equation is given in a publication, however I wish to modify it.

As the variable is in both the numerator and demoninator I am unsure of how to solve this.

any suggestions?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
So you have T= \frac{ln(x/k)}{x- k}?

Multiply on both sides by x- k to get T(x- k)= ln(x/k). Then get rid of the logarithm by taking the exponential of both sides: e^{Tx- Tk}= e^{-Tk}e^{Tx}= x/k, ke^{-Tk}= xe^{-Tx}.
Multiply both side by -T to get -Tke^{-Tk}= -Txe^{-Tx}.

That's as far as you can go with standard "algebraic" steps. To solve for x, first let y= -Tx so the equation becomes ye^y= -Tke^{-Tk} and now you can use "Lambert's W function" which is defined as "the inverse function to f(x)= xe^x". That is, if xe^x= a, then x= W(a).

Applying that to both sides of ye^y= -Te^{-Tk} gives y= -Tx= W(-Te^{-Tk}) and so the solution to the original equation is x= -W(-Te^{-Tk})/T.
 
Hello HallsofIvy, I have been meaning to get back to about your reponse.

Thank you for the explanation.

However I am unfamiliar with the Lambert w function. Can you provide an explanation of (-W) in the solution.
 
Hello Bgayn !

The Lambert W function (Table 4c, page 35, in the paper referenced below) was introduced in order to answer to a difficult question : What is the inverse function of x = W exp(W) ? This is a question similar to “What is the inverses functions of x=sin(w) or x=cos(w), …” ? The difficulty was overcome by the introduction of the functions w=arcsin(x), or w=arccos(x), …
The Lambert W function cannot be expressed with a finite number of elementary fuctions, but with infinite series.
Similary, the sin function cannot be expressed with a finite number of elementary fuctions, but with infinite series, before the function arcsin was defined and became usual.
This seems surprizing to one who is not aware of the use of special functions, especialy as closed forms of infinite series.
From "Safari in the Contry of Special Functions", p.24 and p.35 :
http://www.scribd.com/JJacquelin/documents
 
W function question

Thank you for the note. So, in the equation stated is -W a constant that I plug into the equation?
I have values for T and k from our data, however how do I use -W to solve for X?
 
W is not a constant. It is a function namely the Lambert W function.
As any function, you can use this function if you know it and if you have a software in which this function is implemented. Probably, both answer are not. So you can't use this function.
Without it, the only way to solve the equation is to use a numerical method in order to compute the roots
of the equation.
 
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