How to Solve Exponential Equations without Logarithms

  • Thread starter Thread starter malco97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Indices
AI Thread Summary
To solve exponential equations without logarithms, one can identify relationships between the base and the result, such as recognizing that 9 equals 3 squared in the equation 3^x=9. This method works effectively for integers, as shown in examples like 5^x=625, where 625 can be expressed as 5^4. However, for non-integer results, such as in the equation 3^x=7, logarithms become necessary to find the unknown exponent. Understanding these relationships is crucial for solving exponential equations efficiently. This approach allows for a straightforward solution process when applicable.
malco97
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
I would be grateful if someone could tell me how to find unknown indices.

e.g 3^x=9

(i know it is 2 but i would like to know the process for use with larger numbers).

Thankyou in advance
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
3^x=9
therefore
9=3^2
get the log base 3 of both sides
x=2
 
No, you used the fact x=2.

9 = 3^x

log 9 = log (3^x)

log 9 = x log 3

x = log9/log3 = 2

log can be to any base as long as they are the same. you will usually find base 10, or base e on your calculator. log base e is usually ln.
 
No, you used the fact x=2.

1) 3x=9
As long as we can think of the relationship between 3 and 9, we can solve this problem without using logarithm, like the one suggested by enslam.

here are more examples (solve for x)
2) 5x = 625
3) 4*5x = 100
4) 2x = 8

If you use Logarithm, in the step log9/log3, you need to know the fact that 9 = 3^2 too, unless you use a caculator.
 
1) 3x=9
As long as we can think of the relationship between 3 and 9, we can solve this problem without using logarithm, like the one suggested by enslam.

That's true as long as the "opposite" problem, finding the power, can be done easily- as long as the answer is an integer as in all of your examples.

To solve, for example 3x= 7, you will need to use logarithms.
 
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

Back
Top