Is it possible to get an explicit solution for this?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pondering
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explicit
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the equation x = 10log(x) + 30, specifically whether it is possible to derive an explicit solution for it. Participants explore methods to manipulate the equation, including the use of the Lambert W function, while addressing challenges in obtaining both instances of x on the same side of the equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested, Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses difficulty in obtaining an explicit solution beyond an implicit form, estimating that x is slightly more than 1/1000.
  • Another participant suggests that the Lambert W function is necessary for finding an explicit solution, providing approximate real solutions of .0001 and 46.6925.
  • A participant acknowledges the suggestion but indicates confusion over applying the Lambert W function, stating they cannot manipulate the equation as shown in examples from a referenced article.
  • Another reply provides a detailed manipulation of the equation, suggesting a transformation to base e logarithms and a series of steps leading to the use of the Lambert W function, while also noting the presence of logarithms of negative numbers in the process.
  • Further, a participant reiterates their struggle with the manipulation and suggests a method involving exponentiation and rearrangement to facilitate the application of the Lambert W function.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on how to derive an explicit solution, with multiple competing views on the approach to take and ongoing confusion about the application of the Lambert W function.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the manipulation of logarithmic forms and the implications of using logarithms of negative numbers, which may affect the validity of their approaches.

pondering
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
x = 10logx + 30 (log is log base 10)
I cannot get to anything other than this implicit solution. By trial and error I can tell that x must be slightly more than 1/1000 but I would like to get an exact answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need a function such as the Lambert W function to get an explicit solution. Real solution are approximately .0001 and 46.6925.
 
Thanks for the reply. I know you probably don't want to give me the answer right out but in looking at that Wikipedia article I still don't see how to do it. I am not able to get both x's on the same side in any manner resembling the examples from the article.
 
It can be a little tricky. These log's are base e.

x = (10/log(10))log(x) + 30
(-log(10)/10)x=-log(x)+30(-log(10)/10)
(-log(10)/10)x+log(x)=log(10^-3)
(-log(10)/10)x+log((-log(10)/10)x)-log(-log(10)/10)=log(10^-3)
(-log(10)/10)x+log((-log(10)/10)x)=log(-log(10)/10^4)
(-log(10)/10)x=W(-log(10)/10^4)
x=(-10/log(10))W(-log(10)/10^4)

There are log's of negative numbers in there.For finding numerical answers, you can improve your guess systematically
guess 50
x = 10log10(x) + 30
guess 0
x=10^(x/10-3)

Then in each case put the guess into the right hand side over and over until it changes very little.
ie
50
10log10(50) + 30~46.9897000
10log10(46.9897000) + 30~46.7200267
~46.6950
and so forth
 
pondering said:
Thanks for the reply. I know you probably don't want to give me the answer right out but in looking at that Wikipedia article I still don't see how to do it. I am not able to get both x's on the same side in any manner resembling the examples from the article.

First convert your log to base "e", and then write your equation in the form,

[tex]\ln(x) = ax + b[/tex]

Now exponentiate both sided and put it in the form,

[tex]x = e^b \, e^{ax}[/tex]

Finally mult both sides by (-a) and rearrange into the form,

[tex](-ax) e^{-ax} = k[/tex]

It should then be straightforward to use the Lambert W function.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K