How to solve for x when it's in exponent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sarah2529
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponent
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving for x when it appears in an exponent, particularly in the context of a confusing equation found online. Participants clarify that to isolate x, one should take logarithms of both sides, which can be done in any base, although base 264 simplifies the process. There is confusion regarding the interpretation of the equation, with suggestions that the original poster may not have accurately represented the mathematical expression. An example is provided to illustrate the logarithmic approach, demonstrating how to manipulate the equation to solve for x. Overall, the key takeaway is the importance of correctly isolating the x-term and applying logarithmic properties to solve the equation.
sarah2529
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I'm just wondering because I found this crazy picture somewhere on the net.

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs071.snc3/13845_1261921983558_1094945438_30798960_833983_n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Log based 264
 
I see no "x in the exponent" here. Or is that "264^15/99xyz" supposed to be "264^(15/99xyz)" rather than "(264^15)/(99xyz)"?

What about the "*(2n+1)- (pi+ phi)"? Is that in the exponent or not? Looks like the person who posted that on the internet didn't really know what he was doing.

If everything is in the exponent then, like fatra2 said, take logarithms of both sides. If not, subtract the part that is not in the exponent from both sides and then take the logarithm.

You don't NEED to take logarithms base 264 (although that gives the simplest result). Logarithms to any base will do.
 
It probably isn't at all difficult to solve for x, with the exponent interpreted in any way
I'd say your problem is finding the log base 264 button on that cash machine.
 
Haha I would need more than 30 secs just to press all the buttons needed to solve for x, let alone figuring out the answer and what the question actually is - from what it says, I would interpret it as

y=\frac{264^{15}.2xyzn}{99}+1-(\pi+\phi)

But it could obviously mean many other forms. And like hallsofivy has said, the person is obviously clueless about this kind of stuff and was leaning much towards the humour of this picture rather than the accuracy of its question.
 
To answer the basic question, "How to solve for x when it's in the exponent?":

You would need to isolate the x-term on one side of the equation, take the logarithm of both sides of the equation (any base, as long as they're the same), move x from exponent of a logarithm to coefficient of a logarithm (\log{3^X} = X \log 3)[/tex]<br /> <br /> Example:<br /> <br /> 6561 = 3^X[/tex]&lt;br /&gt; \ln{6561} = \ln{3^X}[/tex]&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt; \ln{6561} = X\ln3[/tex]&amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;gt; X = \frac{\ln6561}{\ln3}[/tex]&amp;amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;amp;gt; X = 8[/tex]&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br /&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; \therefore 6561 = 3^8[/tex]
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top