How Can You Prove the Grunberg-Nissan Equation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter syki
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving the Grunberg-Nissan equation, specifically the relationship ln(η) = Σ[x[i]ln(η[i])]. Participants express difficulty in approaching the proof, particularly in utilizing the condition Σ(x[i]) = 1 and logarithmic properties. There's a consensus that the equation is semiempirical, suggesting that while it may not be provable in a traditional sense, its applicability can be tested experimentally. A specific focus is placed on proving the approximation ln(η) ≈ x[1]ln(η[1]) + x[2]ln(η[2]). Overall, the conversation highlights the challenges of mathematically validating this relationship.
syki
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove:

ln(η) = Σ[xi*ln(ηi)]

2. The attempt at a solution

I tried using the relationship:

Σ(xi)=1

and the rules for adding logarithms, but I seem to be totally failing at this. I'm not asking to have it worked out, but any hints on which direction I should go?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
From what I understand this is a semiempirical equation, so there is nothing to prove - you can at best test its applicability experimentally.
 
I was told to, specifically, prove the relationship:

ln(η) ≈ x1*ln(η1) + x2*ln(η2)

is true mathematically. I'm not really sure how to go about that.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top