How Can You Solve 10^x = 2 Without a Calculator?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Xaotique
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential Paper
Click For Summary
To solve the equation 10^x = 2 without a calculator, one can start by using logarithms, specifically log(2) = x. The discussion highlights the challenge of estimating values like 10^0.1 or 10^0.2 without computational tools. An alternative approach involves using a guessing method to narrow down the value of x by testing values between 0 and 1. While the process can be tedious, it serves as a mental exercise rather than a practical necessity, as calculators provide instant results. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the curiosity behind manual calculations despite the convenience of technology.
Xaotique
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
So, if we start with logarithm ln(2) assuming a base of 10, how would I solve this without a calculator?

ln(2)
10^x = 2

And I get stuck there without a calculator. I could ..

ln(10^x) = ln(2)
x ln(10) = ln(2)
x = ln(2)

But that gets me back to where I started.
So, how would I go about solving 10^x = 2 without a calculator? Using a sort of guessing method, I can't really think of what 10^.1 and 10^.2 would be without going off paper.

I just chose a very basic problem to start with just to get the idea. This is just for myself because I'm curious of learning how to accomplish it. Where this came up was doing things like log(3/2) to find the probability of a (semi) random number starting with 2. I came up with 10^x = 1.5 which wasn't so helpful.

Of course, I plug these into a calculator and get them instantly, but by goal is to do without if it's not extremely difficult.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
BC we used a slide rule or math tables.

BC= Before calculators.
 
Xaotique said:
So, if we start with logarithm ln(2) assuming a base of 10, how would I solve this without a calculator?
The base-10 logarithm of a number x is usually written as log(x), not ln(x). ln is always used to mean the natural logarithm, the log with e as the base.
Xaotique said:
ln(2)
10^x = 2
What I think you're trying to say is this:
log(2) = x
2 = 10x

These two equations are equivalent, meaning whatever value of x works in one equation, also works in the other

I don't know why you would want to attempt to find x without using a calculator. It can be done, but it would take a lot to explain how to do this.

As an alternative, and assuming you are allowed to use a calculator that has a 10x button, you can use an approximation technique to solve for x.

If x = 0, 10x = 1 -- too small, so try a larger value of x.
If x = 1, 10x = 10 -- too big, so try a smaller value
If x = .5, 10x = √10 ≈ 3.162 - too big
If x = .25, 10x = ##\sqrt[4]{10}## ≈ 1.778

and so on.
Xaotique said:
And I get stuck there without a calculator. I could ..

ln(10^x) = ln(2)
x ln(10) = ln(2)
x = ln(2)

But that gets me back to where I started.
So, how would I go about solving 10^x = 2 without a calculator? Using a sort of guessing method, I can't really think of what 10^.1 and 10^.2 would be without going off paper.

I just chose a very basic problem to start with just to get the idea. This is just for myself because I'm curious of learning how to accomplish it. Where this came up was doing things like log(3/2) to find the probability of a (semi) random number starting with 2. I came up with 10^x = 1.5 which wasn't so helpful.

Of course, I plug these into a calculator and get them instantly, but by goal is to do without if it's not extremely difficult.

Thanks
 
Well, this isn't for anything specific. It was more for my entertainment. I guess I'll just stick to using a calculator. :P
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K