Solve for x in this index notation problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the equation ##2^x = x^2##, with participants exploring both analytical and numerical methods to find solutions for ##x##. The original poster attempts to prove that ##x=2## and ##x=4## are solutions through analytical reasoning, while others question the completeness of this approach.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss direct substitution and trial/error methods to identify potential solutions. Some question the validity of the analytical steps taken by the original poster and suggest that there may be additional solutions. Others propose plotting the functions to find intersections and mention numerical methods for root finding.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback on each other's reasoning. There is acknowledgment of the need for further exploration of solutions, particularly through numerical methods. Some participants express skepticism about the analytical approach while others suggest alternative methods, indicating a productive exchange of ideas.

Contextual Notes

There is an implicit assumption that ##x>0## in the original poster's reasoning. Additionally, participants are considering the implications of using different forms of the function for analysis and the potential for negative roots.

chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,837
Reaction score
426
Homework Statement
##2^x##=##x^2##
Relevant Equations
trial/error method
ok, by direct substitution i know that either ##x=2## or ##x=4##
but i would like to prove this analytically, would it be correct saying,
##xln 2= 2ln x##
##xln_{2}2=2 ln_{2}x##
##x=2 ln_{2}x##
##\frac {1}{2}=\frac { ln_{2}x}{x}##
##ln_{2}x^{1/x}##=##\frac {1}{2}##
→##2^{1/2}##=##x^{1/x}##
→##x=2##
is my thinking correct? and how do we show the solution ##x=4?## analytically
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I just saw it on another group, where they simply used trial and error to get ##x=2## and ##x=4##
 
Math_QED said:
I doubt you can solve this analytically. Of course, you have made two guesses, but the question is: are there more? The answer turns out to be yes: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2^x+=+x^2

Where did you find this question?
I have made guesses yes and at the same time I have tried to solve the problem and I wanted a feedback on that approach sir.
 
If one writes ##x^y=y^x## isn't it obvious by symmetry that ##x=y## is always one of the solutions?
 
kuruman said:
If one writes ##x^y=y^x## isn't it obvious by symmetry that ##x=y## is always one of the solutions?

i do not disagree,...true, i just wanted to work from the original problem to realize a solution. It is you to inform me whether my steps make sense or not, i have tried showing that, ...yes by symmetry, we would immediately get the solution to the problem as indicated...
 
chwala said:
Homework Statement:: ##2^x##=##x^2##
Relevant Equations:: trial/error method

ok, by direct substitution i know that either ##x=2## or ##x=4##
but i would like to prove this analytically, would it be correct saying,
##xln 2= 2ln x##
You've implicitly assumed ##x>0## here.

##xln_{2}2=2 ln_{2}x##
##x=2 ln_{2}x##
##\frac {1}{2}=\frac { ln_{2}x}{x}##
##ln_{2}x^{1/x}##=##\frac {1}{2}##
→##2^{1/2}##=##x^{1/x}##
→##x=2##
is my thinking correct? and how do we show the solution ##x=4?## analytically
Looks okay, but it doesn't seem like the work really bought you anything. To get to ##x=2## in the last step, you're essentially using the same logic you used to get the solution to the original form, i.e., if you plug in 2, both sides are obviously equal.

The most insightful approach (to me) would be to plot the two functions and see where they intersect. To get the negative root, you'd have to use numerical methods.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
vela said:
You've implicitly assumed ##x>0## here.Looks okay, but it doesn't seem like the work really bought you anything. To get to ##x=2## in the last step, you're essentially using the same logic you used to get the solution to the original form, i.e., if you plug in 2, both sides are obviously equal.

The most insightful approach (to me) would be to plot the two functions and see where they intersect. To get the negative root, you'd have to use numerical methods.
Ok, thanks for your feedback...noted with regards.
 
vela said:
You've implicitly assumed ##x>0## here.Looks okay, but it doesn't seem like the work really bought you anything. To get to ##x=2## in the last step, you're essentially using the same logic you used to get the solution to the original form, i.e., if you plug in 2, both sides are obviously equal.

The most insightful approach (to me) would be to plot the two functions and see where they intersect. To get the negative root, you'd have to use numerical methods.
Which numerical methods would you suggest for the negative roots...
 
  • #10
I like Newton-Raphson.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
  • #11
I know it...I will check it out. Cheers
 
  • #12
1607207077058.png

using the graph we get all the solutions...##x=-0.767##, let me check on how to arrive at this using Newton-raphson method...long since i looked at this numerical methods...cheers
 
  • #13
so we need to let ##f(x)= 2^x -x^2## for us to check the roots btwn ##x=-1## and ##x=1## rather than,
##f(x)=x^2-2^x##, or it does not matter?
note that at ##f(-1)= -0.5## and at ##f(1)=1## implying that the roots lie in between.
ok, i am getting, ##f'(x)=2^x ln 2 -2x##
##x_{1}=x_{0}- \frac {f(x_{0})}{f'(x_{0})}##
##x_{1}=-1-\frac{-0.5}{2.3465}##
##x_{1}=-1+0.213=-0.787##
am i on the correct path...
 
Last edited:
  • #14
What about the lambert w function?is it a reliable way of solving the same problem...just saw it on YouTube.
 
Last edited:
  • #15
I mean... Kind of. But if you asked someone to solve the equation ##xe^x=2## and they told you the answer was W(2), would you consider yourself satisfied? That's the level of satisfaction you'll get using that function. If you ask how to evaluate W, it's going to be the Newton-Rhapsody method or something largely equivalent.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: chwala
  • #16
Office_Shredder said:
Newton-Rhapsody
Spell checker? LOL!
 
  • #17
😃😃😃 a bit of humour is good during this hard times...
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Office_Shredder said:
I mean... Kind of. But if you asked someone to solve the equation ##xe^x=2## and they told you the answer was W(2), would you consider yourself satisfied? That's the level of satisfaction you'll get using that function. If you ask how to evaluate W, it's going to be the Newton-Rhapsody method or something largely equivalent.
If you can find peace in ln(2) being a satisfying answer, I would W(2) should be equally satisfactory.
 
  • #19
Mayhem said:
If you can find peace in ln(2) being a satisfying answer, I would W(2) should be equally satisfactory.
But there's no W button on most people's calculators.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
4K