No - that's wrong. You seem to have divided where you should have multiplied.
#7
Apphysicist
108
0
tommowg said:
x = 2
But that is not the only answer.
I'm not sure you can solve this with simple algebra though. Using fractional exponents or logs may make it easier to look at with x's on one side, but not necessary solvable.
I agree with Apphysicist. There is no simple way to solve for x analytically in this equation.
Last edited:
#9
Dickfore
2,987
5
There are 3 solutions in the set of real numbers:
x = 2 is surely a solution;
The other two are in the intervals:
x > e and
-1 < x < 0
#10
JonF
621
1
Your teacher / book probably just wants you to give 2 as an answer. Other answers would be in terms of something like the Lambert W Function, which is something you wouldn't even know exists until you've had a few more years of math.