IB Math Methods- Problems with Problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter Astronomer107
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ib Math methods
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around solving two equations involving exponential functions. The first equation, 32^2x = e(e^2x + 1), requires careful handling of exponents and proper distribution. The second equation, e^2x - 5e + x + 6 = 0, cannot be factored, prompting the use of the quadratic formula, but clarity on the expression's structure is essential. Participants emphasize the importance of correctly writing exponents to avoid confusion, particularly distinguishing between e^(2x) and e^2x. The solution process involves isolating terms and applying natural logarithms to solve for x effectively.
Astronomer107
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
I have a few problems:
Solve
1.
32^2x = e
e^2x +1

I cross multiplied and got 3e^2x = e(e^2x + 1) Then:
3e^2x = e^2x+e And now I don't know what to do from here...

2. Solve

e^2x - 5e+x + 6 = 0

This one can't be factored, so does the quadratic equation work here? If so, how is it done with "e"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, I'd double check and make sure you wrote both of these equations correctly. I think you've made at least two typos. Also, you have to group your exponents with parentheses. i.e.:

e^2x = e2x = e2 * x
but
e^(2x) = e2x

People will still understand what you mean, but you should always strive to write things correctly instead of relying on people to read your mind. Generally, you should avoid ever writing e^2x, even if you are using it correctly, because it can generate confusion.



Some things to consider for the first problem:

Did you distribute right?

Can you solve the equation for e2x?


For the second problem:

Once you get the right statement of the problem, consider that e2x = (ex)2
 
Last edited:
Like Hurkyl, I would say that e^2x is almost certainly intended to be e^(2x), but I would not be nearly so sure about e^2x+1 !

Is that intended to be e^(2x)+ 1 or e^(2x+1)? I would say either was likely and they are very different.

IF it were 3e^(2x)/(e^(2x+1)) = e, the left side reduces to
3e^(2x-(2x+1))= 3 e^(-1) which is not e so I guess that was not intended!

3e^(2x)/(e^(2x)+1)= e gives, after you multiply both sides by that denominator, 3e^(2x)= e(e^(2x)+1)= e*e^(2x)+ e. Now, like you learned to do long ago, subtract that e*e^(2x) from both sides to get x on only one side of the equation.

You should now have 3e^(2x)- e e^(2x)= (3-e)e^(2x)= e.

If you have an equation of the form Ax= B, you would divide both sides by A wouldn't you? Okay, divide both sides of the equation by
3-e to get e^(2x)= e/(3-e).

Now the "new" part. How do you get rid of that "e^ " part?
Well, natural logarithm, ln(x) is DEFINED as the inverse (opposite) of e^x. What happens if you take ln of both sides of the equation?
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top