Solve 5√x ≥ 625 Exponential Inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter enibaraliu
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To solve the exponential inequality 5√x ≥ 625, the initial steps involve simplifying to 26/x ≥ 125. The discussion highlights the necessity of using logarithms for further simplification, as raising both sides to a power does not yield a clear solution. Participants emphasize that logarithmic methods are essential for finding an exact answer, while graphing calculators can provide approximations. One contributor notes that the solution process was deleted for violating forum rules, but they assert that understanding logarithms is crucial. Ultimately, the consensus is that logarithms are necessary to solve the inequality accurately.
enibaraliu
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I tried to solve this exponential inequation , but i can't do more:

5\sqrt[x]{64} \geq 625

5*26/x>=625 dived by 5
26/x>=125
26/x>=53 and i have not idea what to do then
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Raise both sides to the x/6 power and obtain 2 >= 5^(3x/6). Then simplify and obtain
2 >= 5^(x/2)

From there the steps no longer seem clear unless you know how to use rules of logarithms. Using base 2 or base 5 appear to offer no advantage, so take logarithms of both sides, base 10. (or base e if you prefer).
 
Last edited:
but the answer sad that the result is:xE (0,3),so this don't need logarithms
 
Some of that solution is wrong. x cannot reasonably be too close to 3. Did you try using logarithms and resorting to a graphing calculator? x should be small, maybe very small. Anybody else? I might check more thoroughly, later.
 
I believe easiest to start from here,
2^(6/x) >= 125
and take logarithms by any base of both sides.
 
There is no way I know of to get an exact answer for x without using logarithms. You can plug into a graphing calculator to get an approximate answer, but why not use logarithms?
 
Tedjn said:
There is no way I know of to get an exact answer for x without using logarithms. You can plug into a graphing calculator to get an approximate answer, but why not use logarithms?

I in fact solved the problem without using a graphing calculator; I also then posted the solution process but doing so was a violation of the rules of this forum so that post was deleted. Knowing about logarithms is truly necessary.
 
27= 128 so you must have 6/x slightly less than 7. that means that x is slightly less than 7/6, or close to 1.
I don't know what you meant by "but the answer said that the result is:xE (0,3),so this don't need logarithms " since many numbers in that interval can only be written as logarithms!
 
Back
Top