MHB -s6.6 solve exponential eq 3^x-14\cdot 3^{-x}=5

  • Thread starter Thread starter karush
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential
AI Thread Summary
The exponential equation 3^x - 14·3^(-x) = 5 can be rewritten as 3^x + 14/3^x = 5, leading to the quadratic equation 3^(2x) - 5·3^x - 14 = 0. Factoring gives (3^x - 7)(3^x + 2) = 0, resulting in the valid solution 3^x = 7. The solution for x is x = log_3(7) = log(7)/log(3) ≈ 1.7712. The discussion also highlights alternative approaches to solving the equation and clarifies the factoring process. The final solution is confirmed to be correct.
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
\tiny{s464\\6.6}
solve the exponential equation. $3^x-14\cdot 3^{-x}=5$
Rewrite $\quad 3^x+\dfrac{14}{3^x}=5$
$\times$ $\quad 3^x \quad 3^{2x}+14=5\cdot 3^x$
quadratic $\quad 3^{2x}-5\cdot3^x-14 =0$
Factor $\quad (3^x-7)(3^x+2)=0$
Discard $\quad 3^x =7$
hence $\quad x=\log_3(7)=\dfrac{\log 7}{\log 3}\approx 1.7712$

ok i think it is correct
probably better to use () rather than $\cdot$
didn't know is factoring out the 3 was possible
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
That's good. I would have done it just slightly differently. I would have let y= 3^x so that the equation became y- 14/y= 5. multiplying by y gives y^2- 5y- 14= 0. That, of course, factors as (y- 7)(y+ 2)= 0 so that y= 7 or y= -2. But 3^x cannot be negative so the only solution is 3^x= 7, x log(3)= log(7) and x= log(7)/log(3) as you had.

(I don't see where you "factored out" a 3.)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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...

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top