Rearranging Equation: Where is My Mistake?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hexa
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around rearranging the equation Z=Y+(X/W)Ve^(WU)-1, with Y set to 0. Participants express confusion over the notation, particularly regarding the term e^(WU-1) versus e^(WU)-1. Clarifications are provided on how to isolate U, leading to two potential solutions based on the interpretation of the equation. The correct approach involves dividing by (X/W)V and applying logarithmic properties to solve for U. The key takeaway is the importance of clear notation in mathematical equations to avoid misinterpretation.
hexa
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I'm trying to rearange an equation but don't manage to get the right results so I guess the rearranging did not work out properly. Where is my mistake?

Z=Y+(X/W)Ve(^(WU) -1)
Y=0


my sollution:
U=ln (Z/((X/W)U))+1 /W

thanks a lot

hexa
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
hexa said:
Z=Y+(X/W)Ve(^(WU) -1)
I don't really get this equation. Can you write it in a clearer way? What's V, and is it e ^(WU - 1) or e ^(WU) - 1?
Viet Dao,
 
hexa said:
my sollution:
U=ln (Z/((X/W)U))+1 /W
What happens to V? Why is there a U on the right? Is that supposed to be V? And yeah, what does e(^(WU)-1) mean? Did you mean to write e^(WU-1)?
 
hexa said:
I'm trying to rearange an equation but don't manage to get the right results so I guess the rearranging did not work out properly. Where is my mistake?

Z=Y+(X/W)Ve(^(WU) -1)
Y=0


my sollution:
U=ln (Z/((X/W)U))+1 /W

thanks a lot

hexa

I am not clear on what e(^(WU)-1) could mean. I'm going to assume that it was e^(WU-1) (eWU-1). The other possiblility is e^(WU)- 1 (eWU-1.

If Y= 0, then the equation is really Z= (X/W)V eWU-1. Divide both sides by (X/W)V and we have (WZ)/(XV)= eWU-1. Take the natural logarithm of both sides to get ln((WZ)/(XV))= WU-1. Add 1 to both sides: WU= 1+ ln((WZ)/(XV). Finally, divide both sides by W and you have
U= (1+ ln((WZ)/(XV)))/W.

Of the problem was, in fact, Z= (X/W)V (eWU-1) then start out the same as above- divide by (X/W)V to get (WZ)/(XV)= eWU-1.
Add 1 to both sides: eWU= 1+(WZ)/(XV). Take logarithms of both sides: WU= ln(1+ (WZ)/(XV)). Finally, divide both sides by W:
U= ln(1+(WZ)/(XV))/W.
 
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...
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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