What is the Solution for Solving Exponential Equations with Unknown Variables?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NZS92
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponent
NZS92
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Solve for x,
(73/10)^(x-1)+5 - 3^(x+1)=0
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
we can't solve this for you, please show your attempts at solving it first so we can comment on where you're stuck or got it worng.
 
I literally have no idea, tried log, ln, e^x,

my first work:
7.3^(x-1)+5=3^(x+1)

log_(3) (7.3^(x-1)+5)=x+1

e^(log_3 (7.3^(x-1)+5) / e^x = e

(7.3^(x-1)+5)/e^x =e
7.3^(x-1)+5= ee^x
7.3^(x-1) -ee^x=-5

my second work,
7.3^(x-1)=3^(x+1)-5

(x-1)log(73/10)=log(3^(x+1)-5)

xlog(73/10)-log(73/10) = log(3^(x+1)-5)

(e^(xlog(73/10)) / (e^(log73/10) = 3^(x+1)-5

e^(xlog73/10) = 3^(x+1) e^(log73/10)-5e^(log73/10)
 
Just to clarify, you mean
\left(\frac{73}{10}\right)^{x-1}-3^{x+1}+5=0

right? Because I don't believe this expression can be solved algebraically. You can, of course, find a numerical solution to the problem however.
 
I agree with Mentallic, if its as he wrote there is no simple algebraic solution only a numeric one.
 
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

Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
980
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top