Generalized W Lambert function

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MartiniBird
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function generalized
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The equation x²[A+B.exp(x)]=1, where A and B are real numbers and x is complex, cannot be solved using a finite combination of elementary functions or standard special functions. The Lambert W function provides solutions for related equations, such as x.exp(x)=a and x².exp(x)=a, but does not extend to this specific case. Numerical methods are the recommended approach for solving this equation, especially in physics applications. The discussion highlights the challenges in recasting the equation to utilize the Lambert function effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Lambert W function and its applications.
  • Familiarity with complex numbers and their properties.
  • Knowledge of numerical methods for solving equations.
  • Basic principles of mathematical physics related to real and complex solutions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research numerical methods for solving nonlinear equations, such as Newton's method.
  • Explore advanced applications of the Lambert W function in physics problems.
  • Study perturbation theory and its application to complex equations.
  • Investigate specialized mathematical software that can handle complex equations and numerical solutions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers dealing with complex equations and numerical analysis, particularly those interested in the applications of the Lambert W function and numerical methods in solving nonlinear problems.

MartiniBird
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone,
I'm currently trying to solve this equation : x²[A+B.exp(x)]=1 for A and B real numbers, and x a complex (this comes from physics, so in my case, Re(x)>0)

I know that x.exp(x)=a has a solution using Lambert function : x=W(a)
I know that x².exp(x)=a may be recast to use the Lambert function, the solution being something like x=2W(sqrt(a)/2)

But what about my equation ? I tried a lot of things to recast the equation and use the Lambert function, but nothing, so I'm asking to you guys ...

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
MartiniBird said:
Hi everyone,
I'm currently trying to solve this equation : x²[A+B.exp(x)]=1 for A and B real numbers, and x a complex (this comes from physics, so in my case, Re(x)>0)

I know that x.exp(x)=a has a solution using Lambert function : x=W(a)
I know that x².exp(x)=a may be recast to use the Lambert function, the solution being something like x=2W(sqrt(a)/2)

But what about my equation ? I tried a lot of things to recast the equation and use the Lambert function, but nothing, so I'm asking to you guys ...

Thanks

The roots of the equation x²[A+B.exp(x)]=1 cannot be expressed as a combination of a finite number of elementary functions.
As far as I know, up to now, there is no standard special function which could help to analitically solve it.
Of course, it is possible that someone already defined a particular function in order to formally express the roots. Even if such a function was defined, it cannot be of general use, since the function is not implemented in mathematical softwares, nor common in math background.
Nevertheless, the equation can be solved, thanks to numerical methods. I think that it is presently the usual way to solve these kind of problems when they are encountered in Physics.
 
Ok thanks. I know there are other methods to solve that. I have started to find x0 solution of my equation with B=0 (this case has a particular physical signification. For example, x has to be real, not complex in this case). And then, to solve my equation with B≠0, I assume that x=x0+dx and obtain solution with dx complex. But this is just for small variations ! I don't know I can do that for stronger perturbation dx.

I guess I cannot do something else... first I thought that I could do the assumption B>>A to remove the A in my equation because we know solutions for x².B.exp(x)=1 ... however it seems not correct because the condition to do that is in fact A<<B.cos(Re(x)) that may be not true for some values of x...

But thanks anyway
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K