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.

$$\begin{array}{c|l|c|l}op & N & & log \\ \hline \text{-} & 1.84194 & \rightarrow & 0.26528 \\ & 0.46 & \rightarrow & 0.66276 - 1 \\ \hline & 4.0042 & \leftarrow & 0.60252 \end{array}$$
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

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