What is the error in this simple logarithmic equation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ali Asadullah
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithmic
Ali Asadullah
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Can anyone please tell me what is wrong with this solution


log(5x-17) = log(4x-14)
As logarithmic functions are one-one so,
5x-17 = 4x-14
=> x =3
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
That's a very good question Ali. The problem is the domain of the log function over the reals.

So there is no solution over the domain of real numbers, however x=3 is a solution if the domain is the complex number field. This is an interesting result in the sense that we require the existence of complex numbers in order for a solution to exist, even though the solution itself is not complex!
 
What's basically wrong is that neither of the logarithms (in their real sense) are defined for x=3 since their argument will be negative. Comes in what uart said.
 
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...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top