1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Solve for x

  1. Feb 26, 2007 #1
    i have to solve for x:
    [tex]x^a - x = 1[/tex] where [tex]a = \frac{\ln 6}{\ln 5}[/tex]

    taking [itex]\ln[/itex] in both side, i get,
    [tex]a\ln x = \ln(x+1)[/tex]

    [tex]\Rightarrow\frac{\ln(x+1)}{\ln x} = a = \frac{\ln 6}{\ln 5}[/tex]

    here we can see that x = 5.

    but what i wanted to know is the general solution of the equation for any [itex]a \in \mathbb{R}[/itex] .
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 26, 2007 #2
    I just did quick graph of a(x), and it looks like no real roots for 0<a<1 exist.
     
  4. Feb 26, 2007 #3

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    There's a simple argument for the uniqueness of the solution to the problem.

    Consider the function

    [tex] f(x)=\ln 5 \ln (x+1) -\ln 6 \ln x [/tex]

    x=5 is clearly a solution. Since the derivative of the function is monotonic negative on [itex] \mathbb{R}_{+} [/itex], it follows that the function is everly decreasing on the positive semiaxis, therefore the x=5 solution (zero of the function) is unique.
     
  5. Feb 26, 2007 #4
    but what is the general solution for any [itex]a \in \mathbb{R}[/itex]?
     
  6. Feb 26, 2007 #5

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    In the general case, the problem's more complicated, as, for example the case a=4 shows.

    [tex] x+1=x^{4} [/tex]

    Solve it...
     
  7. Feb 26, 2007 #6
    its approximately x = 0.72449
    i solved it by numerical methods. but how can i solve it algebraically?
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2007
  8. Feb 26, 2007 #7

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The point i was trying to make is that you generally can't (solve it algebraically). Your problem was simple, but a general one isn't...
     
  9. Feb 26, 2007 #8

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    You do understand, don't you, that there exist polynomial equations (or degree 5 or higher) that have NO solutions in terms of radicals?
     
  10. Feb 26, 2007 #9
    well at least there's a limit for x....as a-->infinity....x-->1 :D
     
  11. Feb 27, 2007 #10

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    There exist methods of solving polynomials in terms of radicals and co-effecients, but only if the degree is 5 or lower, As Halls said. But even those methods, to me at least, are very long and cumbersome. In fact i remember seeing the equations which give x for a general quartic equation. There were 4 different equations for the 4 values of x, and each equation went at least across your entire screen, taking 2 lines.
     
  12. Feb 27, 2007 #11
    can we solve the following algebraically:
    [tex]x^x = e[/tex]

    i got this:
    [tex]\ln(x^x) = 1[/tex]
    [tex]\Rightarrow x\ln x = 1[/tex]
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2007
  13. Feb 27, 2007 #12

    dextercioby

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Nope, it can't be done algebraically. Graph intersection.
     
  14. Feb 28, 2007 #13

    uart

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It cant be written in terms of elementry function but it can be written in terms of the lambert W function.

    [tex] x = e^{W(1)} [/tex]
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2007
  15. Feb 28, 2007 #14

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    My understanding was "only if the degree is lower than 5"- there exist polynomials of degree 5 which cannot be solved "by radicals" (because S5[/sup] is not a solvable group).
     
  16. Mar 1, 2007 #15
    how can we prove that we can't solve [tex]x^x = e[/tex] algebraically? can anyone please help?
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2007
  17. Mar 1, 2007 #16

    That's a transcendental equation.:smile:
    Not of polynomial type.
     
  18. Mar 2, 2007 #17

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Halls: My bad sorry, you're correct of course. Abel-Ruffeni's Theorem, i think it is, just incase anyone is interested.

    murshid_islam: Prove [itex] x = e^{W(1)} [/itex] isn't the solution to any polynomial with rational co-effecients.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Solve for x
  1. Solving for x (Replies: 12)

  2. Solve x^x=x (Replies: 7)

  3. Solve v = f(x) for x (Replies: 3)

  4. Solving for X (Replies: 2)

Loading...