Solving 2(5^{x+1})=1+3/5^x for x in form a+log_5(b)

  • Thread starter Thread starter matadorqk
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
38 replies · 8K views
lol, i actually solved it ... but idk if it's correct

[tex]y=\ln\frac{1}{x+2}[/tex]

[tex]x=\ln\frac{1}{y+2}[/tex]

[tex]x=-\ln{(y+2)}[/tex] simplifying, ln1 = 0; dividing by -1

[tex]f^{-1}(x)=\exp^{-x}-2[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
umm

rocophysics said:
you had x/(x+2), it should be 1/(x+2) :p
1/x+2? You sure about that?

[tex]\ln x+\ln(x-2)-\ln(x^{2}-4)[/tex]

[tex]\ln (x^{2}-2x)-\ln(x^{2}-4)[/tex]

[tex]\ln \frac {x^{2}-2x}{x^{2}-4}[/tex]

[tex]\ln \frac {(x)(x-2)}{(x+2)(x-2)}[/tex]

Cancl out the "x-2"...

[tex]\ln \frac {x}{x+2}[/tex]
Where does your 1 come from?
 
Last edited:
ohhh that said lnx + ln(x-2); oops, you got it though ... argh! now the inverse is wrong (wrong if my method was correct)
 
rocophysics said:
ohhh that said lnx + ln(x-2); oops, you got it though ... argh! now the inverse is wrong (wrong if i actually did it correctly)
Well, I'll ask about the teacher how to make the inverse, I am going to move on to this:

Find [tex]\sum{ln(2^{r})}[/tex] <-- (where i=1 goes on the bottom of the sum, and 50 on the top.), giving the answer in the form of [tex]a \ln (2)[/tex] where a has to be a set of rational numbers.

First off, let's solve for [tex]a_{1}[/tex]

[tex]\ln(2^{1})=a_{1}[/tex]

Wait, its not given wether its geometric or arithmetic... umm, am I supposed to obtain that?
 
Last edited:
matadorqk said:
Well, I'll ask about the teacher how to make the inverse, I am going to move on to this:

Find [tex]\sum{ln(2^{r})}[/tex] <-- (where i=1 goes on the bottom of the sum, and 50 on the top.), giving the answer in the form of aln2 where a has to be a set of rational numbers.

First off, let's solve for [tex]a_{1}[/tex]

[tex]\ln(2^{1})=a_{1}[/tex]

Wait, its not given wether its geometric or arithmetic... umm, am I supposed to obtain that?
lol, i haven't done this type of problem in nearly 5 months ... i would definitely butcher this problem!
 
rocophysics said:
lol, i haven't done this type of problem in nearly 5 months ... i would definitely butcher this problem!

Lol..im missing this sum problem, another sum problem, the inverse problem, and one that hopefully you have done recently haha.

Let [tex]y=log_{3} z[/tex] where z is a function of x. The diagram shows the straight line L, which represents the graph of y against x.
(a) Using the graph or otherwise, estimate the value of x when z=9
(b) The line L passes through point (1,[tex]\log_{3}\frac{5}{9}.[/tex] Its gradient is 2. Find an expression for z in terms of x.

? Yeah, I have no idea. The graph you are provided goes from about (0.7, -2) to about 5.3, 6.7.. I think you won't need the graph hopefully, but any idea on how to even remotely solve this?
 
matadorqk said:
Well, I'll ask about the teacher how to make the inverse, I am going to move on to this:

Find [tex]\sum{ln(2^{r})}[/tex] <-- (where i=1 goes on the bottom of the sum, and 50 on the top.), giving the answer in the form of [tex]a \ln (2)[/tex] where a has to be a set of rational numbers.

First off, let's solve for [tex]a_{1}[/tex]

[tex]\ln(2^{1})=a_{1}[/tex]

Wait, its not given wether its geometric or arithmetic... umm, am I supposed to obtain that?
Why would you have to be GIVEN whether a series is geometric or arithmetic (most are neither)? Can't you check whether the definitions are satisfied? One obvious simplification here is to use the fact that
ln(2r)= r ln(2). You series is
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{50}r ln(2)= ln(2)\sum_{i=1}^{50} r[/itex]<br /> That last, the sum of consectutive integers, is well known.[/tex]
 
HallsofIvy said:
Why would you have to be GIVEN whether a series is geometric or arithmetic (most are neither)? Can't you check whether the definitions are satisfied? One obvious simplification here is to use the fact that
ln(2r)= r ln(2). You series is
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{50}r ln(2)= ln(2)\sum_{i=1}^{50} r[/itex]<br /> That last, the sum of consectutive integers, is well known.[/tex]
[tex] <br /> Right.. thanks[/tex]
 
remember arithmetic increases by a constant difference while geometric does not