Split ln() of two exponential summands

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on solving the equation ln(e^x) = ln(z) + ln((e^x) + (e^y)), where z is known and x and y are regression terms with common regressors. Participants clarify that the equation cannot be easily manipulated due to the properties of logarithms, particularly ln(a+b). The Lambert W function is suggested as a potential tool for solving for x when y is known. The main challenge is to express both x and y in a non-exponential form to facilitate regression analysis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logarithmic properties, specifically ln(a+b) and ln(ab).
  • Familiarity with the Lambert W function for solving equations involving exponentials.
  • Knowledge of regression analysis and how to formulate regression terms.
  • Basic algebraic manipulation skills to handle exponential equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of logarithms, focusing on ln(a+b) and its limitations.
  • Learn how to apply the Lambert W function in solving exponential equations.
  • Explore regression analysis techniques, particularly constrained least-squares problems.
  • Investigate methods for transforming exponential equations into linear forms for easier analysis.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, data scientists, and statisticians involved in regression modeling and those seeking to solve complex equations involving exponential terms.

globi
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Dear all

I am calibrating a temperature measurement model and I am stuck with an equation. The variable z is given; x and y represent two regression terms with common regressors - which I will solve for a specific regressor in a second step.


Homework Equations



ln(e^x) = ln(z) + ln((e^x) + (e^y))

I need all x and y non-exponential, so that I can solve the equation for x and y. Now I am confused with the properties of ln((e^x) + (e^y)), this is a bracket of two exponential summands with two different exponents.


The Attempt at a Solution


As far as I know, the term ln(a+b) can not be rewritten that easily. But I was wondering if this changes if both summands are exponential, as in my case.

How can I solve the equation for x and y?
Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I presume you know that ln(a)+ ln(b)= ln(ab) so your equation is ln(e^x)= ln(z(e^x+ e^y). Now take the exponential of both sides.<br /> <br /> I also presume you know that you <b>cannot</b> solve a single equation for both x and y. It is relatively easy to solve for z <b>or</b> y. To solve for x I think you would need the &quot;Lambert W function&quot;.
 
HallsofIvy said:
I presume you know that ln(a)+ ln(b)= ln(ab) so your equation is ln(e^x)= ln(z(e^x+ e^y). Now take the exponential of both sides.<br /> <br /> I also presume you know that you <b>cannot</b> solve a single equation for both x and y. It is relatively easy to solve for z <b>or</b> y. To solve for x I think you would need the &quot;Lambert W function&quot;.
<br /> <br /> If you know ##y## and ##z## the solution is easy:<br /> e^x = \frac{z \, e^y}{1-z}
 
Thank you for your answers. Maybe I was not clear. But as I wrote, only z is known a priori. x and y both represent two regression terms with common regressors, i.e. they have the same variables (which are known) and partially the same coefficients. In the end, I am interested in those coefficients (the relation amongst all coefficients is known, so that I can reduce them to one coefficient).
This is why I need to rewrite the equation in a way that I have both x and y in a non-exponential form. I will then fill in the regression terms for x and y and then solve the whole equation for the coefficients of interest.

HallsofIvy, your suggestion goes actually back in the direction I started. The original tool calibration equation is e^x= z*(e^x+ e^y) with x and y representing regression terms. Then I introduced ln in order to "get x and y down from e" and applied the rule you mentioned and ended with ln(e^x) = ln(z) + ln((e^x) + (e^y)). The left side is clear: I take the ln and get x; ln(z) is also fine (as z is known); but what is with ln((e^x) + (e^y)) ?

I hope now my problem is clear and any help is appreciated.
 
globi said:
Thank you for your answers. Maybe I was not clear. But as I wrote, only z is known a priori. x and y both represent two regression terms with common regressors, i.e. they have the same variables (which are known) and partially the same coefficients. In the end, I am interested in those coefficients (the relation amongst all coefficients is known, so that I can reduce them to one coefficient).
This is why I need to rewrite the equation in a way that I have both x and y in a non-exponential form. I will then fill in the regression terms for x and y and then solve the whole equation for the coefficients of interest.

HallsofIvy, your suggestion goes actually back in the direction I started. The original tool calibration equation is e^x= z*(e^x+ e^y) with x and y representing regression terms. Then I introduced ln in order to "get x and y down from e" and applied the rule you mentioned and ended with ln(e^x) = ln(z) + ln((e^x) + (e^y)). The left side is clear: I take the ln and get x; ln(z) is also fine (as z is known); but what is with ln((e^x) + (e^y)) ?

I hope now my problem is clear and any help is appreciated.

Your problem is very unclear, so let me describe what I THINK you might be saying. You have some independent variables, say u and v and two dependent variables x and y, for which you propose some formulas x = f(u,v) and y = g(u,v), perhaps of the simple forms x = a + b*u + c*v and y = k + m*u + n*v. You want to determine the coefficients a,b,c,k,m,n in such a way that for a given value z we have
e^{a + bu + cv} = z \left( e^{a + bu + cv} + e^{k + mu + nv} \right)
for all ##u,v## (or at least for some ##u,v##) and also that the functions ##f(u,v) = a + bu + cv, g(u,v) = k + mu + nv## satisfy some kind of least-squares criterion (that is, you have a constrained least-squares problem--- constrained by the equation written above). Does that describe your problem, at least roughly? If not, you will need to present some details (such as the forms of x and y, the nature of the variables, etc.) and provide a more extensive explanation.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K