MHB Solve for x: e^-0.38x=.3 - I Got .4387 - Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goosey00
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
To solve the equation e^(-0.38x) = 0.3, the initial answer of 0.4387 is incorrect. The correct approach involves taking the natural logarithm of both sides, leading to the equation -0.38x = ln(0.3). By rearranging, x can be calculated as ln(0.3) / -0.38, resulting in approximately 3.168. It's recommended to use a scientific calculator or online tools to verify calculations. Understanding how to properly use logarithms is essential for solving exponential equations.
goosey00
Messages
37
Reaction score
0
Solve for x:e^-0.38x=.3
I got .4387 Is that correct
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
goosey00 said:
Solve for x:e^-0.38x=.3
I got .4387 Is that correct

You can check by evaluating $e^{-0.38*0.4387}$
If we use google calculator we end up with 0.8467 (4sf) so 0.4387 is not correct.

What do you know about solving exponential equations and/or the natural logarithm?
 
I just can't remember how to put it in my calculator again. How did you get the .4387 to times by it-[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic-Web]e [FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]−[FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]0.38[FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]∗[FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]0.4387
 
goosey00 said:
I just can't remember how to put it in my calculator again. How did you get the .4387 to times by it-[FONT=MathJax_Math-italic-Web]e [FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]−[FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]0.38[FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]∗[FONT=MathJax_Main-Web]0.4387

Either
Code:
 [2nd] [ln] [(] [-][0.38] [x] [0.4387][)][=]

or
Code:
 [(] [-][0.38] [x] [0.4387][)][2nd] [ln][=]

You can also use an online calculator to check answers - I used google which you can see in the link above and there is also a MHB calculator which works. For your own calculator it may be prudent to find the manual online (search for "Ti30x user manual") so you're not stuck in an exam.

Bear in mind that was just a test to see if your answer was right (it isn't). You need to use the natural logarithm (ln) to find x.

$-0.38\ln(x) = ln(0.3)$
 
Hello, goosey00!

Solve for x:\;e^{-0.38x}\:=\:0.3

I got 0.4387 . Is that correct?
Can't you check your answer?
\text{We have: }\:e^{-0.38x} \;=\;0.3

\text{Take logs: }\:\ln(e^{-0.38x}) \;=\;\ln(0.3) \quad\Rightarrow\quad \text{-}0.38x\underbrace{\ln e}_{\text{This is 1}} \;=\;\ln(0.3)
. . . \text{-}0.38x \;=\;\ln(0.3) \quad\Rightarrow\quad x \;=\;\frac{\ln(0.3)}{\text{-}0.38}

. . . . . x \;=\;3.168\,349\,485
 
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...
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 '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...

Similar threads

Back
Top