Solve 3^(2x) - 2*3^(x+5) + 3^10 = 0 - Brain Boosting Hint

  • Thread starter Thread starter doneitall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponential
AI Thread Summary
To solve the equation 3^(2x) - 2*3^(x+5) + 3^10 = 0, it can be rewritten as (3^2)^x - 2(3^x)(3^5) + 3^10 = 0, indicating a quadratic form. This allows the use of the Quadratic Formula to find solutions for 3^x. After obtaining the values for 3^x, logarithms can be applied to solve for x. The discussion emphasizes the importance of recognizing the quadratic structure and suggests a substitution method for clarity. The problem is positioned as a review in precalculus, focusing on exponent rules without involving calculus.
doneitall
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Can someone give me a starter hint for this problem? Brain's not working at full speed...

3^(2x) - 2*3^(x+5) + 3^10 = 0

Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Here are some rules for exponentials:

(a^b)^c=a^{b\cdot c}

a^b\cdot a^c=a^{b+c}

See if you can apply these rules to solve your equation.
 
Welcome to the forum.

Please use the homework outline for your posting of homework.

Are you just trying to solve for x ... or it's derivative or ... what?

Please be specific and show your attempt at a solution and then we can help you out.

Thanks
Matt
 
Looking to solve for x. It is a homework problem... one that I assigned. I teach this for a living and although I'm sure there's something relatively simple that I'm missing, for the life of me I don't see it now. This is a review problem in precalculus so it doesn't involve calculus to solve.

I've looked at it as: (3^2)^x - 2 (3^x)(3^5) + 3^10 = 0 but not sure where to go next. I don't want a solution - just a shove in the right direction. (Before I go mad!)
 
Rewrite your equation as 32x - 2*35*3x + 310 = 0.

This is an equation that is quadratic in form, so you can use the Quadratic Formula to solve for 3x. After that, you can use logs to solve for x.
 
Sheesh! I had tried this by letting u = 3^x but made an error and gave up when it didn't work out. Thanks. I feel better now.
 
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