Using the Lambert W-Function to Solve for a Unique Real Value of x

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uan
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on solving the equation ax = b - cln(dx) using the Lambert W-Function. The user successfully reformulates the equation into a suitable form for applying the Lambert W-Function but finds that it primarily helps to express the equation more clearly rather than providing a direct solution. The Lambert W-Function allows for the identification of x in terms of W, but numerical methods or mathematical software are necessary to find specific values for x. Ultimately, while the Lambert W-Function aids in recognizing the equation's structure, it does not simplify the process of finding a unique real solution. Numerical solutions or consulting mathematical tables remain essential for determining the value of x.
Uan
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Not really sure where this question belongs in this forum...

I was solving an engineering problem and I got to the form

ax=b-cln(dx)

where a, b, c and d are constant real values. I had a peek at the answer and they got a unique positive real valued answer for x but I have no idea how. Some searching I came across the Lambert W-Function and I got it into the form

\frac{1}{d}e^{\frac{b}{c}} = xe^{\frac{ax}{c}}

How do I proceed to apply the Lambert W-Function from here?

WolframAlpha found that

x = \frac{c}{a}W\left ( \frac{a}{cd}e^{\frac{b}{c}} \right )
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
$$x=W(g) \Leftrightarrow x*e^x = g$$
Therefore,
$$\frac{ax}{c} = W\left ( \frac{a}{cd}e^{\frac{b}{c}} \right ) \Leftrightarrow \frac{ax}{c} \exp\left(\frac{ax}{c}\right) = \frac{a}{cd}e^{\frac{b}{c}}$$

Multiply both sides with c/a and you get the equation in your post. The other direction works the same, you just have to see that you need the shape (something)*e^(something) and work with the constants to get that.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Well, LambertW is defined to be the inverse of W e^W. If there was a way to invert that function, there would be no need to define LambertW! The expression you got is the most thing you can do. Then you are supposed to say "Oh yeah, so x should be the LambertW of such and so". And for actually finding numbers for x, you should consult mathematical tables or math softwares .
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks, that clears a lot up. So really the Lambert W in this case doesn't help all that much - just allows the function to be in a more recognisable form. You still need to go back to...

\frac{1}{d}e^{\frac{b}{c}} = xe^{\frac{ax}{c}}

and solve numerically for x.
 
Or look up function values of the Lambert W function, yes.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K