Solving non-elementary functions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentallic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
AI Thread Summary
Non-elementary functions, such as equations like 2^x = x^2, often cannot be solved using elementary methods due to their complexity, which typically results in iterative solutions. There is a lack of formal proofs demonstrating the impossibility of solving these equations with elementary functions, leading to speculation about whether such methods might one day be discovered. Historical context shows that mathematical advancements have previously transformed unsolvable equations into solvable ones, suggesting that current limitations may be temporary. The discussion highlights the role of special functions, like Lambert's W, in providing solutions to these complex equations. Overall, the exploration of non-elementary functions continues to evolve as mathematical understanding progresses.
Mentallic
Homework Helper
Messages
3,802
Reaction score
95
I'm curious to understand why there are such equations that cannot be solved with elementary methods, but rather only numerically.

e.g. 2^x=x^2

Is there a proof that claims that elementary methods cannot be used to solve such an equation, or is it that there could quite possibly be methods to solve these, but they are too complicated and yet to be discovered?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I am not aware of any such proofs, but it would be tremendous if there were.

But I guess because no matter what operation you will do on the equation you will still get an iterative equation which you cannot go outside it.

I mean usually in numerical analysis, for example your equation we may take log_2 on the equation and receive the equation: x=2log_2 (x) which can only be solved by iterations.
I guess a proof should show that you cannot differentiate the unique solution(s) from the equation, providing that both of them are defined in the same interval, and indeed both of the functions intersect, if I'm not mistaken at both ends (negative and plus).
 
Yes I would've also found it tremendous that any such legitimate proofs exist but while I always see the words "it can't be solved with elementary functions" I'd also like to see a proof to support this statement. Can't it be solved because mathematicians have yet to find any method of doing so, or is it impossible for some reason, such as how you've said it can only be solved by iterations?

Looking back in history, there would've been a time when linear equations ax+b=0 could be solved, however ax^2+bx+c=0 were supposedly unsolvable, until the method of completing the square was discovered.
Could we just be in a primitive version of mathematical history that have yet to find links between a^x-x^a=0 and many other examples?
 
Type transcedental equation, and you will find your answer apparently they have closed form solutions but via special functions which is still an approximation.
 
Mentallic said:
Looking back in history, there would've been a time when linear equations ax+b=0 could be solved, however ax^2+bx+c=0 were supposedly unsolvable, until the method of completing the square was discovered.
Could we just be in a primitive version of mathematical history that have yet to find links between a^x-x^a=0 and many other examples?

Solving a univariate linear equation requires subtraction and division. Solving a univariate quadratic equation requires in addition root extraction.

Similarly, solving a^x = x^a requires Lambert's W (or similar functions). As we gain reasons to solve equations like this support for and knowledge of these special functions will increase.
 
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...
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 '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