Solving for exponents in proportionality

EliteLegend
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
In an experiment I am performing, I observed the following:

Result is directly proportional to A
Result is inversely proportional to B

So, I assume two constants, alpha and beta such that:

Result = (A^alpha)/(B^beta)

Now, if I know I want to solve for alpha and beta but is this the right approach to take to get the value of Result for any given A and B?

(Actually, I could have assumed Result = k. (A/B) but I am not sure that my result follows such a simple proportionality which is why I assumed alpha and beta). Any input on this is appreciated. Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You also need a constant out front, for a total of 3 constants to be determined.
 
So that means, I should in fact be looking at Result = k. (A^alpha) * (B^beta)? Could you provide me some insight on how to go about solving this equation? I am new to these things so even a direction would be helpful...

I was actually thinking of determining alpha, beta and k on a trial and error basis experimentally but that would take me ages with the experiment I am running...
 
Take logarithms, then it's just a high school algebra exercise to regress three points to it. If you have more data you can do a standard least-squares fit.
 
Understood... Thanks so much for the help :)
 
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...
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top