Need help getting exp equation to lambert form

  • Thread starter Thread starter nalo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around solving an equation numerically in MATLAB that involves the Lambert W function. The original equation is expressed as z[1-e(-1/z)]=1, which simplifies to z = 1/(Wk(-1/e1) + 1) in MuPad. The user struggled to transform the equation into the appropriate form for applying the Lambert W function. A solution was provided, demonstrating the steps to rewrite the equation and ultimately confirming that the original equation lacks real roots. The user successfully resolved their actual question, aligning their results with MATLAB's output.
nalo
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have an equation that I have numerically solved in MATLAB - but can't figure out how MatLab has done it! It has used a Lambert W equation to get an answer for my formula which is in the style:

z[1-e(-1/z)]=1

which MuPad simplifies down to:

z = 1/(Wk(-1/e1) + 1)

But I've been trying to figure out how to even get z into the correct form for Lambert W [XeX = Y -> X = W(Y)] and can't figure it out.

Hopefully someone can open my eyes as I can't help but think it should be a simple enough solution.

Thanks for any help!

Nalo
 
Physics news on Phys.org
nalo said:
I have an equation that I have numerically solved in MATLAB - but can't figure out how MatLab has done it! It has used a Lambert W equation to get an answer for my formula which is in the style:

z[1-e(-1/z)]=1

which MuPad simplifies down to:

z = 1/(Wk(-1/e1) + 1)

But I've been trying to figure out how to even get z into the correct form for Lambert W [XeX = Y -> X = W(Y)] and can't figure it out.

Hopefully someone can open my eyes as I can't help but think it should be a simple enough solution.

Thanks for any help!

Nalo

Rewrite your equation as:

e^{-\frac 1 z} = 1 - \frac 1 z

Let u = 1 - 1/z giving eu-1 = u. This gives:

1 = ue1-u) = ue1e-u. Now let v = -u, giving vev= -1/e. So v = W(-1/e). Now you can just back substitute for z.
 
Back substitute for z if you dare. (-1)e^(-1)=(-1/e) so W(-1/e)=(-1). Your original equation doesn't have any real roots.
 
Thank you very much LCKurtz! My maths brain is mucho rusty.

Dick said:
Back substitute for z if you dare. (-1)e^(-1)=(-1/e) so W(-1/e)=(-1). Your original equation doesn't have any real roots.

Ah I noticed that just after I posted. It's just a style example of a more long winded question I've got.

Just worked through my actual question there and got the same result as MATLAB (give or take a very little) so thank you all for your help!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K