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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sarah2529
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponent
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top