How can I solve the following equation

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdnazmulh
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The equation 2^x + 6x = 16 can be solved using numerical methods or graphical analysis. The function f(x) = 2^x + 6x - 16 is continuous and strictly increasing, with roots found through testing values such as f(0) < 0 and f(4) > 0, leading to the conclusion that x = 2 is the solution. For equations involving transcendental functions, such as x + ln x = c, the Lambert W function can be employed to find solutions. However, no elementary function exists for these types of equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of exponential functions and their properties
  • Familiarity with numerical methods for root-finding
  • Basic knowledge of the Lambert W function
  • Graphical analysis of functions and intersections
NEXT STEPS
  • Learn numerical methods for solving equations, such as the Newton-Raphson method
  • Explore the properties and applications of the Lambert W function
  • Study graphical methods for finding intersections of functions
  • Investigate transcendental equations and their solutions
USEFUL FOR

Students, mathematicians, and educators interested in solving complex equations involving exponential and logarithmic functions.

mdnazmulh
Messages
51
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



what is the procedure to solve the following equation for x?
2^x + 6x = 16

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I tried as following but it didn't work,
2^x + 6x = 16
2^x + 6x = 2^4
2^x + 6x = 2^4
(2^x) / 2^4 + (6x)/ 2^4 = 1
2^(x-4) + 6x/16 = 1
2^(x-4) + 3x/8 = 1
taking LCM,
8[2^(x-4)] + 3x = 8
[2^3][2^(x-4)] + 3x = 8
2^(x-1) + 3x = 8
after this stage I couldn't go farther..
The answer is x=2, but how to obtain it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

I doubt whether this is the sollution you wanted to see, but this kind of equations are usually solved numerically [please correct me if I am wrong].
My proposition:

we have a function:
f(x) = 2^x + 6x - 2^4
three facts that are obvious:
  • the function is continuous and strictly increasing
  • f(0) &lt; 0
  • f(4) &gt; 0.
Realizing that it is a darboux function, we know that there exists such an "a", that f(a) = 0. You can know write a computer program, to see the approximate number or you can guess it for yourself, cause the function you have is pretty student-friendly:

f(0) &lt; 0 \wedge f(4) &gt; 0
f(1) &lt; 0 \wedge f(4) &gt; 0
f(1) &lt; 0 \wedge f(3) &gt; 0
f(2) = 0

hey! that's my answer!



maybe there is some smart way to do a few algebraic operations in order to get this '2' but I can't find it. I hope my post was somehow helpful to you.

rahl
 
The way u showed is not what I wanted. I don't have any idea about darboux function.
Can't we solve the above equation in any other easier way?

And how do we solve x + ln x = c ( c is some constant) or, a^x + x = c (a,c r constants) equations?
 
It can be solved graphically.

Rearrange it:

2^x + 6x = 16

2^x = 16 - 6x

Now plot both of the functions and it can be easily read from the graph (of course check it analytically) that they intersect at (2;4) so x = 2 is the root you're looking for.
 
If you are looking for a solution in terms of an "elementary function", there is none. That is generally true of equations that involve the variable both "inside" and "outside" a transcendental function.

You could use the "Lambert W function",
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html,
which is defined as the inverse function to f(x)= xex. For example, if x+ ln x= c, then ln x= x+ c. Taking the exponential of both sides, x= ex+ c= exec so, dividing both sides by ex, xe-x= ec. If we let u= -x, then x= -u and we have -ueu= ec or ueu= -ec. Applying the W function to both sides, u= W(-ec). Then x= -u= -W(-ec).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K