MHB Exponential Equation Help with Log Tables

  • Thread starter Thread starter cbarker1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential Log
AI Thread Summary
To solve the equation ${2.884}^{x}=0.01439$ using log tables, the correct approach involves calculating the logarithms of both sides. The exact solution is given as $x=\frac{\log(0.01439)}{\log(2.884)}$, which simplifies to approximately -4.004. Errors in earlier calculations were identified, particularly in the evaluation of $\log(0.01439)$, which should be correctly calculated as $\log(1.439) - 2$. The final calculations confirm that the logarithmic values lead to the correct result of $x \approx -4.004$.
cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
Directions: Use a log table to solve for x:

${2.884}^{x}=0.01439$

$x*\log\left({2.884}\right)=\log\left({0.01439}\right)$

$x=\frac{\log\left({0.01439}\right)}{\log\left({2.884}\right)}$ is the exact answer.

The solution to the problem is -4.004 in the back of the book.

To evaluate the logarithms with table:

$\log\left({.01439}\right)\equiv\log\left({1.439}\right)-2, where \log\left({1.439}\right)=.15806$

$-2.15806, 8.15806-10$

$\log\left({2.884}\right)=.46000$

$x=\frac{-2.15806}{.46000}$ drop the negative sign to compute the logarithms.

$\log\left({\frac{2.15806}{.46}}\right)=\log\left({2.15806}\right)-\log\left({.46}\right)$

$\log\left({2.15806}\right)=.3340512$

$.3340512, 10.3340512-10$

$\log\left({.4600}\right)\equiv\log\left({4.600}\right)-1, where \log\left({4.600}\right)=.66276$

$-1.66276, 9.66276-10$

Now, I need some help to subtract the correct values of $\log\left({2.15806}\right)$ and $\log\left({.46000}\right)$ to get the answer of .60249 in the log table.Thanks for the help

CBarker1
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Cbarker1 said:
Directions: Use a log table to solve for x:

${2.884}^{x}=0.01439$

$x*\log\left({2.884}\right)=\log\left({0.01439}\right)$

$x=\frac{\log\left({0.01439}\right)}{\log\left({2.884}\right)}$ is the exact answer.

The solution to the problem is -4.004 in the back of the book.

To evaluate the logarithms with table:

$\log\left({.01439}\right)\equiv\color{red}\log\left({1.439}\right)-2, where \log\left({1.439}\right)=.15806$

$\color{red}-2.15806, 8.15806-10$

...

Good morning,

I've marked in red the calculations where you made a mistake:

$$-2 + 0.15806 \approx -1.84194$$

and

$$\log(1.84194) = 0.26528$$

This error occurs in your following calculations again.

The best would be if you keep mantissae and prefixes separated.
 
Cbarker1 said:
Directions: Use a log table to solve for x:

...

Hello again,

I'll show you how I've learned to use a log table. (I visited school without calculators or computers. The most advanced piece of technology was a slide-ruler!)

You want to calculate

$$|x| = \frac{1.84194}{0.46}$$

with a log table. "op" means operation of the logarithms, N is the numerus and log means the logarithm base 10.

$$\begin{array}{c|l|c|l}op & N & & log \\ \hline \text{-} & 1.84194 & \rightarrow & 0.26528 \\ & 0.46 & \rightarrow & 0.66276 - 1 \\ \hline & 4.0042 & \leftarrow & 0.60252 \end{array}$$
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top